Skip to main content
10:30 am
that not every dollar has been wisely spent or is sacred. also the same with liberals. they need to say not every spent on domestic welfare has been well spent. both sides should come together in both areas of the government. >> senator, you talked about the fiscal cliff that is looming at the end of december. we have tax cuts that are about to expire, many of them, and we also have, like you were just talking about the trillion sequester cuts. all these things are happening by the end of the year. what do you think congress should do, do you feel like they should leave everything as is? or do you think, do you have any ideas that congress should put in place that you will put forward when you guys go back in next week? >> yeah, i think that the best way to talk about the tax rates
10:31 am
is they're what we've had for 10 years. businesses have made their plans predicated on a tax rate. i don't think we should increase the tax rates on anybody. i don't care if you're rich, middle class or poor. we shouldn't divide up people. we should divide people into two sectors. private sector, public sector. i don't want to grow the public sector, i want to grow the private sector. so that means means, leaving as much money in the private sector as possible. i don't want to tax anybody any more to take any money out of the private sector. why? because that's where jobs have created. we've tried this before, the vilify cation of the rich. we tried this one time having is certain surtax on yachts, same as having one on millionaires and anything else. the things we lost were men and women making $50,000-$60,000 a year making the yachts. what happens is it doesn't work. it's hard to punish one set of
10:32 am
people. also very not american to say i want to go after those successful people. it also ignores the facts, the rich people pay all the taxes in our country. top 5%, those making $200,000 and above pay 70% of the income tax. and if you make $75,000 and above you pay 96% of the income tax. we already have a progressive tax code and i don't think we need to make it more progressive. >> remaining minute, i want to go back to your earlier minute about what happens after the election. for you personally, where will you compromise in what is likely to be a divided congress, regardless of who wins the white house? >> i think the compromise is for conservatives to acknowledge that not every dollar spent on military is wisely spent or sacred. that's the compromise for conservatives. compromise for liberals is not every dollar in welfare is well spent. dd we compromise in the reverse
10:33 am
direction. liberals will say we'll let you raise military and conservatives say we'll let you raise entitlement. we need to reverse compromise. we don't need more revenue up there. we've got $2.3 trillion coming in. let's just spend what comes in and reduce the spending. >> neil, let you turn to you. what did we learn? >> i think we learned quite a bit about where senator paul differs from the republican party. these are things we sort of knew, but maybe viewers have not been entirely aware that senator paul had missed distinction from most of the republicans in the senate on the foreign policy issues, but that he seems to think he has the momentum going
10:34 am
forward and is kind of playing a longer game when it comes to how these things work. host: i want to ask you about a piece in the morning paper that you wrote, the president's focus on big bird, binders and baionets may backfire. >> i had some interesting conversations with people that conduct these polls. you answer your phone, who are you going to vote for? these are telling me that the tactics that president obama is using, talking about diners, bayonets and big birds, they're rubbing people the wrong way. in part because they want to focus on jobs in the economy, which is this big, darker issue that the country is facing right now. it's worrying people a lot. and so, the idea that he can talk about things like the binders comment, which is really just a play off a comment that mitt romney made during the presidential debate, where he talks about his desire to hire a lot of women.
10:35 am
and it's not helping him. i think that's reflected in the poll numbers because you're seeing right now romney is tied, or seems to have a kind of momentum moving into the time week. that's just what pollsters are saying. i think democrats feel that this will help particularly with women voters, because they make up the majority, and if they can kind of put forward this argument that mitt romney wants to take away somethings that are very important to them, then they can get the edge amongst that party leck rate. which in a very close election can be really critical. host: thank you both for being with us on this news maker for this sunday. >> watch our newsmakers with rande paul again today at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span.
10:36 am
now watch our coverage of the presidential candidates, plus races from around the country. next on c-span, a third party presidential debate moderated by larry king, followed by the final presidential debate on foreign policy. and later, former g nor ed rendell and rick santorum take a look at this year's elections. >> you're watching it live, one of 10,000 homes that they're trying to get done in the next four years. these are houses that are never coming back. >> no, not right now, no. one family every 20 minutes moving out. >> moving out? it's going back to the prairie and these houses are just disappearing from the landscape. >> yeah, 90,000 ready to go.
10:37 am
>> just recently actually 164 firefighters were laid off, as part of this sort of down sizing, as sort of this effort for mayor to get the finances under control in the city. so firefighters, which detroit needs because it's got, i think it must have the highest case of arson in the country, these guys are laid off. about two weeks later, 100 guys are rehired. when you look to find out where that money came from, it was actually the department of homeland security has a fund for things like that. and i don't want to overstate, but that's something you want to think about. the department of homeland security needed to step in to keep detroit as safe as it can be for the moment, it could be a lot safer. so we're talking about -- i wonder, and i wobbedered making this film, we've seen the auto industry bailout, we've seen the bank bailout. are we heading into an era of bailout the city?
10:38 am
is there such a thing as a failed city? >> more with the detropia director heidi ewing. >> it's a great source of information for the public, so if you want to know anything about what's going on with legislation, with policy, c-span's got it covered. i like book tv, that's my forgave favorite. because i get to see different authors speaking around the country. it's nice to see some of the people you read about. c-span offers exactly the news as it's happening. it doesn't offer commentary. it's just telling you the facts and showing you you can make your own decisions. the decisions are not being told to you. and it's just, to me, that's very interesting. people who want to be engaged in society and know what's going on. >> mazey meade watches c-span. brought to you as a public service by your television provider.
10:39 am
>> four third party presidential candidates debated last week in chicago. jill stein of the green party, former congressman virgin good of the constitution party, and rocky anderson of the justice party. hosted by the free and equal elections foundation, and moderated by larry king, this is an hour and a half.
10:40 am
>> good evening. to every individual taking the time to care to watch this historic debate tonight. no matter where you are tuning in, no matter what party or group to which you belong, this debate is for individuals. the voter, the taxpayer, the hard-working middle class worker, the struggling single parents on minimum wage. the small business owner. everyone. i welcome and thank all of you for being here tonight. tonight, we're all taking part in something good, and real, and honest, and open without debate contracts and private interests controlling -- [cheers and applause]
10:41 am
without them controlling the questions we ask, and the answers the candidates deliver. free, open, and fair. free and equal works to control the electoral system by bringing it back to where it belongs. we do this by opening debate and forming nonpart son coalitions to unite people in organizations across the political spectrum who also want free, open and fair elections. tonight's debate is the first of its kind. and our sponsors represent a diveers group of media, businesses, musicians, radio personalities, organizations, and individuals representing all types of political ideologies. i imagine our audience is just as diverse. tonight you will meet four presidential candidates, two of them lean to the left, while the other two lean a little more to the right, giving us a perfect balance of ideas and view points
10:42 am
on how to fix our broken nation. these candidates secured enough ballot lines to be here today. in the future, we hope to have more resources so we can open the debate even further with more debate, more candidates at every level of government. [cheers and applause] ultimately we, the people, are responsible for our government. if we don't pay attention, if we don't vote, if we don't protest or discuss important issues with friends, co workers and classmates, then we get more of the same. the same corrupt, dysfunctional system, no matter who's in charge. but if we turn off the distractions, and listen and learn and read and question more about who is really benefiting and educating ourselves on how we got here and figure out how each of us can make a positive
10:43 am
impact, that's the way to change the system. knowledge sharing, truth-seeking, open debate, fresh ideas, and discovering a common ground among each other. no matter what your political persuasion, we are the critical time in our nation's history. it's time to take our country back from the private interests who control our beliefs, our opinions and our lives. [cheers and applause] thank you very much for joining us tonight. our moderator this evening is award-winning broadcaster and media personality larry king. [cheers and applause] >> don't, don't. >> his new online home is aura tv and he is the host of "larry king now." welcome larry.
10:44 am
[cheers and applause] >> thank you. and welcome everybody. i'm very happy to be doing this. i think all voices should be heard. a few notes about the format for tonight's debate, really easy job for me because it's a rather simple format. each candidate will have an opportunity to make a two-minute opening statement. the order of these statements have been randomly determined. six questions will be asked in all, and in 90 minutes. the questions have been selected from submissions made via social media. after a question is asked, each candidate will have two minutes to answer it. each candidate will have a total of six opportunities in all, once all candidates gave their two minute responses, they'll each have an additional one minute to expand or not expand. they can choose to respond or not. candidates can use their additional minutes or save their time to use it later. we will wrap up with a
10:45 am
two-minute closing statement from each candidate. and with that, let me introduce these four independent candidates. first, jill stein, the mother of position long-time teacher of internal medicine, and the green party nominee for president. [cheers and applause] as you can already tell, we are permitting audience participation. we're in downtown chicago, by the way, at the hilton hotel. next is rocky anderson, the former mayor of salt lake city, the justice party nominee. [cheers and applause] next is virgil goode, jr., former member of the house of
10:46 am
representatives and the constitution party nominee for president. [cheers and applause] and the final independent candidate is former governor gary johnson. [cheers and applause] and gary is the libertarian party nominee. the first question for tonight's topic is our elect torral system. this question is from the free and equals election foundation hosting this debate and will be asked about christina. >> thank you. we'll start from the left to right. here's our question. parties do not nominate candidates. instead, the candidates choose their own ballot label. all candidates run in the
10:47 am
primary but only the top two vote getters appear on the ballots in the november election. the system is currently in louisiana, washington state and california. it is now a ballot measure in arizona, prop 121, with other states interested in adopting the system. what can your position on the top two primary system, and why? >> we'll start with jill stein. >> thank you, and again thank you so much to free and equal and to all of you for being here. yes, i think top two does not enlarge our democracy. in many ways it confuses things more. it puts many candidates onto the ballot all together, and it arby temporarily attaches party labels to them. any candidate can choose any label they want. so it really degrades the meaning of our political parties.
10:48 am
where they have meaning, and i know they don't always, but there are some that do have meaning that aren't bought and sold to the highest bidder. and the green party is one of those parties. and i know there are some other parties here as well. the independent party, where the party actually represents real values. and the top two obscures the meaning of those parties, and it essentially puts everyone in together so you really can't tell who's representing you and whoever has the biggest budget stands to win that primary. and essentially becomes another way that big money can control our elections. so i oppose top two as the green party does, and we actually support a whole variety of election reform for the purpose of enlarging our democracy, not increasing the sell-out of our
10:49 am
democracy. we are calling for getting money out of politics through public financing. we're calling for opening up the air waves -- [cheers and applause] to all qualified candidates. we are calling for a constitutional -- >> 10 seconds, jill. >> to clarify that money is not speech, and that corporations are not people to -- to take back our constitution a.m. rights. [cheers and applause] >> our next for two minutes, rocky anderson. rocky? >> the top two system is simply a continuation of the degradation of our democracy by this monopoly of the republican and democratic parties. our system has been so constricted, our democracy so degraded by these two parties from the very beginning in terms of ballot access, even getting on the ballot so you can give people choices, this top two
10:50 am
option would simply fell you just go ahead and keep raising all your money, you put your own candidates out there, you can even have just two people from the same political party. and that means no choice for the voters. [cheers and applause] last night, last night and in all of these presidential and vice presidentle debate. look how constricted it has been when you've had two parties there, the republicans and the democrats. they're arguing about who's going to spend more on the military budget? barack obama bragging that he's increased the military budget? every year that he's been in office. they're both trying to outdo each other in terms of who will drill more both offshore and on public lands, and neither of them even dares to talk about getting rid of this disastrous
10:51 am
failed war on drugs. neither of them talk about catastrophic climate change, and neither of them talk about poverty. [cheers and applause] when we've got the worst poverty rate in this country since 1965. so we need to open up the choices. in south africa the world rejoiced at the growth of their democracy falling apartheid. i've got the first ballot in the presidential election that had 18 people's names on it. that's real democracy and that's giving the voters real choice. [cheers and applause] >> rocky, here's one quick question, when you were mayor, what party were you in? >> well, i was in the democratic party, but it was a nonpar san. i was a democratic candidate for congress in 1996, but i've had it with the democratic party. [cheers and applause] >> virgil goode, what party were
10:52 am
you in? >> i was an independent democratic republican and now i'm in the constitution party. always conservative. >> ok. your response for two minutes to the initial question. >> thank you, larry. first i want to say thanks to you for being here for lending your name and your prestige to this event. and to thank free and equal for their hard work in bringing a much broader vision to the american people so they will know they've got more choices than just obama and romney. i do not favor the top two system. i agree with jill when she says money is not speech, and that the top two system enhances those that have the most money. however, i am not in public financing, i was not in favor of $100 million for the democratic
10:53 am
national convention of taxpayer money, $100 million to the republican national convention of taxpayer money. [cheers and applause] the top two system is primarily a state issue. i would not be in favor of federal legislation repeeling what louisiana has done, or telling virginia, or telling maine or telling arizona or new mexico any state what they should do. but we've got to work with every state, and every legislation and oppose top two. in my view, it's a hindrance to true democracy for grass roots americans that don't want to be controlled by super packs. [cheers and applause] >> all right. and our final speaker on this
10:54 am
topic, i know you were republican as governor of new mexico, gary johnson, your response. >> well, running for governor of new mexico as a republican, i ran completely outside of the political system. completely. i mean i went and i somewhere duesed myself to the republican party two weeks before i ran, and they said you know what? we like you, we like what you've got to say, we're completely inclusive. you can go and you can make your case to all republicans in this state. take part in the debates, take part in the discussion. that's the way that politics should be. i was able to make that presentation, i was able to make that case, and by the way, the republican party chairman at that time said, now you can do all this stuff but you just need to know that you'll never get elected because it's not possible to get elected governor in a state that's 2-1 democrat. well i did get elected. so as governor of new mexico, completely outside of the political system, i've always been pro choice regarding
10:55 am
everything, ok? so should this be top two voting candidate system? this should be something that gets ferretted out at the local level. something that gets ferretted out at the state level, not the national level. look, there is only a couple of voices being heard here and it's tweedle dee and it's deeding dum. [cheers and applause] two weeks ago two candidates talking about who's going to spend more money on medicare when medicare's the system that you and i pay $30,000 into and get $100,000 benefit. it's a 3-1 what you pay in and what you get out. it's not sustainable. yet it's indicative of our federal government today which is on an institute, unsustainable path, the results of which are going to be a monetary collapse unless we actually bring this under control. and as a third party, i have been given the opportunity to
10:56 am
make the case that's not being made by either of the two major candidates. >> thank you governor. [cheers and applause] >> a lot of people ask me why i would consent to do this. one, i like moderating and two, i like asking questions even though i didn't ask these questions, they were submitted. and three, i think these people deserve a lot of credit for coming forward. it's easy to sit back and watch these people stand up. they may not be counted on november 6, but they're counting today and they deserve to be heard. [cheers and applause] each is now entitled to a one minute response if they care to use it. jill? >> yeah, thank you, i just want to mention talking about how all of us need to stand up and demand real democracy, and demand free and open inclusive debates. i just want to mention that my running mate and i went to the
10:57 am
door step of the commission on presidential debates at hostra university last week and that we were arrested, we were tightly bound with plastic restraints, and tied to chairs for eight hours for daring to stand up and demand open debates. but this is what all of us need to do. i encourage you to go to my website, jillstein.rog and sign the petition there for opening the debates and for challenging the commissioner on presidential debates. we should not let them do this again. [cheers and applause] >> rocky. you have one minute. >> the top two system is a sign that these two parties, this political duapoly is trying to further put their stringlehold on our democracy. we have to stand up together.
10:58 am
and in federal elections, it is a federal matter, we didn't leave it to the state, the corrupting influence of money in this country is at the root of every major public policy disaster. that's why we don't have health care for all as in the rest of the industrialized world. that's why we aren't providing international leadership on the climate crisis because of all the corrupt money coming from the fossil fuel industry. and why we have this enormously waistful military budget with this military industrial complex putting pressure on congress and the white house. >> five seconds. >> so we need public financing of elections for our democracy. >> virgil -- ok, rocky. >> thank you. [cheers and applause] >> virgil, one minute. >> thank you. the top two system, as others have indicated, favors the superpacks and the political action committee. their political action
10:59 am
committee's not just the businesses, but of unions. i'm for no political action committee. individual contributions only, and no superpacks. i believe congress can craft legislation with presidential leadership to stop political action committees. big money that funnels through the pack is the greatest hindrance in my opinion to free and open elections, and freedom and democracy in this country. we threw off the king at the time of the revolution because of heavy handedness. we need to throw the packs out now and vote for third parties that will stand up for america. >> all right. [cheers and applause] i'm reminded you can use it or not use it, governor. >> well, i think that when it comes to political campaign contributions, that candidates should be required to wear nascar like jackets with patches on the jackets. [cheers and applause]
11:00 am
so what's really needed is 100% transparency. i will tell you that regardless of whether or not romney gets elected or obama gets elected, three things are going to happen. we're going to find ourselves with a continued, heightened police state in this country. we're this country. we will find ourselves continuing to intervene in the world which has resulted in hundreds of millions of enemies to this country that wouldn't otherwise exist. there is a reason why we shouldn't be using drones. it is because we don't just take out the target, we take out a lot of innocent civilians in these countries where these drones attack. [cheers and applause] and then lastly, we will find ourselves in a continued state of unsustainable spending and borrowing to the point that we are going to experience a monetary collapse unless we fix this. >> thank you, governor. [applause]
11:01 am
question,'s second all questions submitted by social media were submitted by jeff tanguay of colorado via facebook. question, in what way does the war on drugs impact americans and how could these effects be reduced. is there a more efficient way to do deal with the issue of drug use in america. two minutes. jill stein. >> how about opening statements? >> did we have opening statements? >> unfortunately, no. >> grassroots. >> i didn't know we had opening statements. i thought we went right to the questions. >> let's go with our opening statements. two minutes each. >> ok.
11:02 am
this will be opening statements, and then we will go to the second question. >> from jill stein. thank you, larry. >> go ahead, jill. >> great. always glad to lead. [cheers and applause] >> the american people are in crisis. we are losing our jobs, decent wages, our homes by the millions, affordable health care and education. the climate is in meltdown, and our civil liberties are under attack. the wealthy few are richer than ever rolling in more doe than ever, and the -- dough than ever, and the political establishment is not making it better, imposing insanity on everyday people while they continue to squander trillions
11:03 am
trillions of dollars on boring for oil we don't need, on wall street bail outs, and tax breaks for the very wealthy. the american people are at the breaking pt. and we need to turn that breaking point in this election into a tipping point to take back our democracy, and see the green future that we deserve, and we do that by standing up and making sure that everyday people have a voice in this election and a choice at the polls that is not bought and paid for by wall street and by advancing the critical solutions that the american people are clamoring for by large majority. our campaign is calling for a green new deal to create $25 million jobs and unemployment. jump start the green economy.
11:04 am
and that means putting a whole new climate change and making war for oil obsolete. we're calling for health care for human rights, for medicare for all, and for bailing out the students, not the banks and making public -- [applause] >> governor, it was not in my notes about an opings oh, opening statement. so i apologize. i follow my notes. for all, and for bailing outi'm. we do what we're told. >> frankly, people are here to listen to you than us. [laughter] >> we are at a pivotal point in our nation's history. young people are burdened with crushing tuition debt. millions of families have lost their homes. requirement accounts have been decimated while wall street fat cats who are buying our elections have made out like bandits.
11:05 am
we have never had the disparity of income and wealth that we see between the very wealthy and all the rest of us since the 1920's. our poverty rates have never been so high as 1965. child poverty. and infant mortality rates are next to the worst in the world. the united states has the worst rate of industrialized nations of women dying in connection with pregnancy and childbirth. under obama care there will be 30 million people without essential health care by the year 2022. and during the bush and the obama years our constitution has been shredded while the impeerl presidency -- the imperial presidency expanded. the presidents that think they can take us to war on a pack of lies. with presidents that think
11:06 am
federal government should have the authority to round anyone up, including u.s. citizens, and imprison them without charges, without trial, without legal representation, and without the right ofwe do '. habeous corpus. and our elected officials are sound asleep when the pentagon is warning that climate change is a greater long-term security risk to the united states than terrorism. so if you like the way things are going, vote democratic or republican. if you want real change, vote your conscience, vote justice. economic justice, social justice, environmental justice. [cheers and applause] >> back to our opening statement from virgil goode. >> thank you, larry. i want to say thank you jill, gary, and rocky for being here. on the four issues i will address right now, you can deduce my positions of what i think. i will name afour positions in
11:07 am
which i am very different from barack obama and mitt romney. first, obama and romney both claim that they were and still are for a balanced budget. reality. the obama budget this year was $1 trillion in deficits. the paul ryan budget which passed the u.s. house was $600 billion in deficit. i have the courage to submit a balanced budget if i'm elected president right after i'm inaugurated. secondly, i am for jobs and america for american citizens first, and the only candidate that has called for a near complete moritorium on green card admissions to the united states until unemployment is under 5%.
11:08 am
it makes no sense to bring in so many foreign workers when our unemployment is so high in this country. [applause] secondly, third, we -- >> running low on time. >> we need the super p.a.c.sit n and political action committees, that would be one of the things to open up our country for greater process and greater voice by the people, and finally, we need term limits. it is time to do the best job in congress instead of the election and fund raiser. >> now an opening statement from governor johnson. >> the country is in really deep trouble. we should not bomb iran. [applause] we should end the war in afghanistan tomorrow. bring the troops home tomorrow. [cheers and applause] marriage equality is a constitutionally guaranteed right on par with civil rights of the 1960's.
11:09 am
let's end the drug wars. legalize marijuana now. [applause] let's repeal the patriot act. [cheers and applause] i would have never signed the national defense authorization act allowing for you and i as u.s. citizens to be arrested and detained without being charged. that's the reason we fought wars in this country. [cheers and applause] i promise to submit a balanced budget to congress in the year 2013. that is a 1.4 trillion reduction in federal spending. if we don't do this now, we are going to find ourselves in a monetary collapse and a monetary collapse very simply is when the dollars we have in our pockets don't buy a thing
11:10 am
because of the acome anying inflation -- because of the accompanying inflation that goes along with every dollar we spend. thathe only candidate wants to eliminate income tax, eliminate corporate tax, abolish the i.r.s. and replace all of that with one federal consumption tax, the fair tax. i think it is the answer to our exports, it is the answer to american jobs. [applause] >> in what way way does the war on drugs impact americans? that was submitted by jeff tanguay via facebook. >> the war on drugs has been an unbelievable tragedy.
11:11 am
to american jobs. i remember someone who came to me and his son had been sentenced on his first drug offense to 15 and a half years to a state penitentiary. on the day president clinton left the white house, he signed a presidential pardon saving cory springfield a decade in sid a presidential pardon saving cory springfield a decade in a federal penitentiary. there is someone sitting in a federal penitentiary today with a 55-year sentence for selling marijuana on three occasions because the informant said there was a gun around. so a gun enhancement, mandatory
11:12 am
gun enhancement from the judge that entered the sentence said it was an outrage. it was unjust. but 55 years. this is the kind of human toll in this country. we don't just need to legalize marijuana, we need to end drug prohibition, just like we ended alcohol prohibition and treat drug use and abuse as a public health and education issue and get it entirely out of the criminal justice system. [cheers and applause] we have the highest incarceration rate. we have 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prison population. we have more people in prison and in jails in this country on
11:13 am
drug offenses than western europe has in their prisons and jails on all offenses. this has to end. we the american people need to come together, right, left, it doesn't matter about partisanship. we need to demand immediately an end to this insane war on drugs. [applause] >> virgil goode. >> i am an advocate of a balanced budget, and i would cut federal spending on the war on drugs. however, drug use is primarily a state issue, not a federal issue. but this is ven going to set well with most 6 -- with most of you. i am not for legalizing marijuana use or other drug use. if we cut back on the war on drugs, that would be a minor part of the federal budget. about $12 billion is being spent this year out of $3.8 trillion budget on the war on drugs. but i am not for funding planned parenthood. i will take that to zero. i am not for funding --
11:14 am
>> we're on drugs. >> i know. but i'm just pointing out how small the federal war on drugs money is in terms of the entire federal government, but i am in favor of reducing it because we have to reduce everything that's generally funded in order to get to a balanced budget. [applause] >> governor johnson, the war on drugs. >> 0% of the -- 90% of the problem is related to inportation not use. 55% of americans support legalizing marijuana. why is this the case? because we are talking about it. because debates are raging at dinner tables that haven't been raging at dinner tables in the past.
11:15 am
let's regulate it. it's on the ballot in colorado in november. coloradoians have the opportunity really to change drug policy worldwide. coloradans get it. six years ago they oat voted to decriminalize marijuana on a campaign based on marijuana being safer than alcohol. i am not a hypocrite on this issue. i have drank alcohol, i have smoked marijuana. i don't drink alcohol, i don't smoke marijuana. i can tell you, in no category is marijuana more dangerous than alcohol. [applause] and yet we are arresting 1.8 million people a year in this country on drug-related crime. we have the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world. 2.3 million people.
11:16 am
half of what we spend on law enforcement, the court and the prisons is drug related, and to what end. look, this is not about advocating drug use. 50% of kids graduating from high school have smoked marijuana. that's an issue that belongs with families, not in the criminal justice system. [applause] >> anybody have any rebuttal? >> i have to make my statements first, and then my rebuttal. so as a medical doctor previously in clinical practice for about 25 years, i can say with a real understanding of the science of the health impact, that marijuana is it a substance that is dangerous because it's illegal. it is not illegal on account of
11:17 am
being dangerous. because it's not dangerous at all. [applause] it is well known that the impacts of marijuana are dangerous because of the illegal drug trade from marijuana drug prohibition. so the most important thing we can do to get rid of the health problems associated with marijuana is to legalize it. and on day one, on day one a president, if she wanted to, could entrust the d.e.a. to oh, to -- could entrust the d.e.a. to do a really radical thing. that would be to use science in determining what substances will and will not be scheduled.
11:18 am
because marijuana is on a president, if she wanted to, could entrust the d.e.a. to oh, to -- could entrust the schedule. [applause] anded same goes for -- and the same goes for hemp, which is also a substance for which there are no bad drug effects. there are no bad health and safety effects. yet there are important health benefits. marijuana should be regulated but not in a way that creates more monday applies but allows small businesses to florish. >> rocky. [applause] rebuttal. >> i don't know if it's really rebuttal. hem p, why is that illegal? except for those money interests that control our congress. we need to rise up as one and say legalize trillion hem p now. -- legalize industrial hemp now. [applause]
11:19 am
>> 40,000 people in prison on drug charges. now we have over a half billion of our people in prison? i would, as president, create a presidential pardon on everyone that did not commit other crimes from our prisons who were arrested for marijuana. [applause] >> anyone else want to reput? >> when i was governor, a meeting started, i didn't know what to expect. they said, hey, we're here to support you. we would like to share with you a story. >> only a minute. >> to pass on to others to let others better understand it.
11:20 am
they said methamphetamine is really the boogeyman of drugs. people that do methamphetamine do horrible things. by the way, it falls on the poor. it is cheap, it is easy to make. so the consequences fall on the poor. if cocaine were legal, these people would be using cocaine without the negative behavioral impact. what i will tell you about cocaine, and it would be wonderful if the government told the truth, cocaine puts holes in your heart. people that use their cocaine their entire life die from a heart attack. >> one-minute rebuttal. [applause] mylet's be clear about position on this. unlike gary, unlike rocky, and unlike jill, i'm not for legalizing drugs.
11:21 am
if you want that, vote for one of them, don't vote for me. [applause] >> we remind you, tonight's debate questions were submitted through social media. this question comes from greg salazar from los angeles. do you think an annual military budget of $1 trillion is absolutely necessary to keep us safe? in a broader sense, what do you think should be the role worldwide of the united states military? two minutes, virgil goode. >> as i said, if i'm elected president i will balance the budget, and part of the cuts have to be in the department of defense. we cannot do as mitt romney and paul ryan suggest increase military funding by $2 trillion over the next decade.
11:22 am
i support a strong defense. but we need to retrench rather than trying to be the policemen of the world. we have too many soldiers, too many troopers scattered around the world. our presence needs to be decreased around the world, not increased, and the united states should stop trying to be the overseer of the world. that will save us billions and billions of dollars. [applause] >> all right. governor johnson. >> we need to provide ourselves with a strong national defense. the operative word here is defense, not offense and not nation building. [applause] >> the biggest threat to our national security is the fact that we're bankrupt, that we're borrowing and printing money to the tune of 43 cents out of every dollar we spend. in promising to submit a
11:23 am
balanced budget to congress in the year 2013, that would include a 43% reduction in military spending. how does that go down. a 43% reduction in military spending takes us back to 2003 spending level. it is getting ourselves out of all the military engagements that we are currently involved in. stop with the military intervention. it is reducing the military footprint worldwide. it is troops we have stationed in japan, in south korea, and in europe. it is intelligence. it is research and development. all of these components go into a 43% reduction when it comes to the military. we have to stop our military intervention. we have to stop with the dronse drone strikes. we have to stop with a policy that has us with hundreds of billions of enemies to this country that but for these policies would not exist.
11:24 am
when we talk about foreign aid to other country it is propping up foreign dictators that are on our side as opposed to the other side? we pick winners and losers, and there are a whole lot of unintended consequences that go along with this. right now we are funding the syrian insurgence and they are made up of jihadists? should we not learn anything about where we funded osama bin laden? [applause] >> jill. >> i want to agree with gary and with rocky, and i guess not with virgeyill in this -- virgil in this instance, to say that a foreign policy based on brute military force and wars for oil is making us less secure not more secure. we need to bring the troops
11:25 am
home and not the drones. we need to put an end to the use of drones and actually lead. not to lead this development of a new arms race, but to lead in an international treaty and a convention to permanently ban the use of drones as a weapon of war and a means of spying on the american public. maws applause [applause] $5 trillion spent on the afghan and other wars. this has not made us more secure. what we are seeing is the blowback against this policy. because dropping bombs on wedding and funerals, which is what drones do with an incredibly high civilian casualty rate, that is not a good way to win the hearts and minds of people in the middle east. [applause]
11:26 am
we need a foreign policy based on human rights and on fighting climate change which should be the war that we are all fighting, not this war for oil. [cheers and applause] >> now on the question of military spending, again we have three more questions coming. on military spending, rocky. >> president obama warned the -- he termed it the military industrial congressional complex. for very good reason. these folks vote for massive funding for completely wasteful projects, like the f-22 that the department of defense said we are never going to use it.
11:27 am
it is out-moded. why would we spend billions of dollars on it? and because the contractor had other contractors or sub contractors in 44 different states, and they did it very strategically, these people, the republicans and democrats alike, voted for additional funding. that is treason against our country when our treasury -- treasure is being wasted, when we need that treas write to go to exporting and jobs, and the biggest problem facing our planet and that is climate change. we need to focus on where the real problems are, rather than those who are benefiting from this corrupt system have their stake. now, there are two fundamentals when it comes to our engagement, military engagement. i think our leaders completely are either esconsing or ignoring. first, no wars of aggression. if you haven't been attacked or you are not imminently going to
11:28 am
be attacked, to attack is an illegal war of aggression under the united nations charter against the nuremberg -- nuremberg principle. we convicted under nurmberg for those same crimes. the decision whether to go to war is congress' alone. they have the sole prerogative. it cannot be delicated to the president as congress has so carelessly done. [applause] >> anyone want to rebut? virgil? >> rocky is correct about following the constitution. i would not be in syria unless congress makes a declaration of war. we will not stay in afghanistan if i'm elected president unless
11:29 am
congress makes a declaration of war. only by going through that constitutional process can we ensure that there -- the will of the american people is addressed when we have issues like syria, afghanistan, and iraq. >> gary, this has fobe to be rebuttal. do you want to rebut something, gary? >> i was opposed to going into iraq before we went into iraq. i did not think they had weapons of mass destruction. i felt -- thought if they had weapons of mass destruction, we have the capability to see weapons of mass destruction. if -- afghanistan, i thought that was totally warranted. we were attacked, we attacked back.
11:30 am
i would argue after having been in afghanistan for six months, we wiped out al-qaeda. that was 11 years ago. we should have gotten out of afghanistan 11 years ago. [applause] here we are now on iran. the larblingest demonstration after 9/11 was in iran by over one million citizens that showed up in support of the united states. and we're going to bomb iran? we're going to bomb the citizens of iran? we'll find ourselves with another 100 million enemies to this country that we wouldn't otherwise have. [applause] i think both candidates said they would not bomb iran. this is our fourth question. the question was submitted by tout. let's go to the question on the video.
11:31 am
>> how will kids get a college education in 2030 for nearly $400,000. is college really worth it at that point? and if so, how can you deny this to everyone. >> you probably didn't hear that, but some estimates give the price of a college education at $400,000 in 2030. his question is, is college even worth if at that point? if so, should college be provided to everyone. >> first of all, as governor of new mexico, we established lottery scholarships which allowed really any graduating high school student from new mexico to go to college with those costs paid. so woths what's the federal role, though, when it comes to education, and what's the primary reason in this country why college division tuition is so high?
11:32 am
well, it is because of guaranteed government student loans that because of guaranteed government student loans, no one has the excuse for not going to education. and so because of that, institutions of higher learning, colleges and universities are immune from pricing that if kids would take a harder look at it, gee, i don't think i can afford $15,000 a semester, i think i will just sit this one out. when that happens en masse, i guarantee you, the cost of college tuition will drop dramatically. today that doesn't exist. i can't afford $15,000, yet friends and family will point and say, look, you can get a guaranteed government student loan. that is another one of government's unintended consequences that have college tuition at such a high rate. [applause] >> jill. >> i think it is time to make
11:33 am
public higher education free as it should be. [cheers and applause] we have done this before when our troops came home from the second world war. we provided free higher education through the g.i. bill. and we know that it pays for itself. for every dwhrar that we invested in -- dollar that we invested, $7 was returned in investments into the economy including more than enough revenue to cover the full cost of those tuition payments. [applause] this is something throughout the 20th century. throughout the 20th century, we provided a high school education for free to our younger generation. why? because it was essential for economic security.
11:34 am
and we owe it to our younger generation it to give them a secured start into their economic rives. -- economic lives. in the 21st century a high school degree won't cut it. you need a college degree in order to have economic security. so it is only right that we should now be providing that for free. [applause] >> and while we're at it, it is time to, instead of bail out wall street, which is what the fed is doing now, with qe-3, $40 billion a month to bail out wall street banks again, instead let's bail out the students and do something really useful with that bail out. [cheers and applause] >> on the question of college, rocky. >> thank you. our forebearers set up a system in this country where everyone
11:35 am
would have a free secondary education. that may have been enough then. but for our nation to regain its global competitive edge, we must provide higher education. either college education or technical education. but it is for the future of our country and to meet the ideal in this nation of equality of opportunity that we should provide a free and equal ed calingse indicational opportunity in college -- in college, and do the right thing for our young people. this is not a radical idea. it is done in in many parts of the world, and it pays a huge dividend. as to those dents students who are saddled with enormous tuition debt, it has reached over $1 trillion, more than the entire credit card debt in this country?
11:36 am
what does congress do? or their fat cat contribute tores? they made student debt nondischargeable in bankruptcy. so you can charge a mazerati on your credit card, but if someone ran out and did what they could to get a decent education can't get a new start. so we need to demand congress to allow discharge yanltability in bankruptcy of student debt now. [cheers and applause] >> you might not get what you want to hear from me, but you will get straight talk. we can't afford more federally subsidized student loans and pell grants. i wish i could say we will give you more. a debt of $16 trillion is
11:37 am
bearing down on us. and as governor johnson said, we could well be like germany after world war i. i do not support this, and the person that asked the question on the internet is not going to like it, but we can't afford more pell grants and federally subsidized student loans. we have to balance the budget and decline the debt. [applause] >> anybody have a rebuttal? >> free comes with a cost. [applause] free, very simply is spending more money than what you take in. free is accumulating more than the $16 trillion in debt that we currently have. free has gotten us to the point where we are going to experience a monetary collapse in this country due to the fact
11:38 am
that we continue to borrow and print more money than we take in. free, the federal reserve system in this tun country, the treasury prints money. they give it to the federal reserve. the federal reserve gives it to the bank at zero percent. do they give that to you or i? no. you p -- with no risk whatsoever. this is what has to stop in this country is the notion of "free." applause there needs to be a level playing field for everybody. [applause] >> any other rebuttals? >> i disagree with both of them on this. we cannot afford not to provide a great education and equality of opportunity for all our young people and in this country. we need to insist on
11:39 am
prosperity, not austerity. and in a recession, it is not time for these massive spending cuts as called for by polls simpson and both of the people running for president with the major parties. we need to get behind our workers and young people and provide but is going to build this nation in the future -- great jobs in the great first- class education. >> jill. rebuttal, jill. >> i am agreeing with rocky here. we cannot afford not to educate our students. our young degeneration is the greatest resource we have. and their participation in our economy is not just good for them, it is good for all of us. every generation, the economy needs to be rerouted by fresh -- rebooted a fresh imagination and the genius of a new
11:40 am
generation. that does not happen when a generation is locked into being indentured servants. that is what our students are now. we need to bail them out and create free public higher education. >> a rebuttal. >> mitt romney in the last debate said he is for expanding student loans and pell grants for you have four candidates you can look to it that is a big issue. >> civil-rights. it was submitted via social media and is being presented exactly as sent to us. the question comes from melissa on twitter. this go around me begin with jill. >> where do you stand on the
11:41 am
ability to detained americans indefinitely and why? >> it is an outrage that 1021 ndaa was ever passed to start with. it is an incredible betrayal of our civil liberties that the president's has assumed dictatorial rights to put us in prison and his -- at his pleasure without charge or without trial. this is not allowable and is a basic offense against the very foundation of american liberty. it should be repealed. [applause] we must also repeal the president's interpretation of the enforcement act in 2001.
11:42 am
the military used at that said -- youth act that said assassinations are in the power of this president. we need to put an end to assassination. an end to the fisa act which retroactively legalized of more to the wiretapping against legal u.s. citizens. [applause] we need to repeal the patriot act and we need to stop the persecution of whistle-blowers who blow the whistle on crimes by our government. [applause] >> ten second spirit >> benjamin franklin said if we sacrifice our liberty for security, we will wind up losing both. so let's take back our liberty. that is the foundation of true
11:43 am
security. >> rocky, detaining americans indefinitely. >> i went to law school because i believe as deeply as one can believe it until the rule of law. and justice. the fact that our system of justice can provide for everyone. what we have seen through the bush years and now with president obama has been so absolutely subversive and anti- american. there has been no more anti american act in our history than the ndaa. president obama, in 2009, he asked for the power to indefinitely detained people without charges, without a trial, without legal assistance, and without the right to habeas corpus.
11:44 am
we are on the road toward totalitarianism and that is not an exaggeration. [applause] this one person -- if one person can be determined against whom and under what conditions law passed by congress and our constitution are going to be applied, that spells tyranny. it is the very definition of tyranny. what happened when president obama came into office? he said about our international treaties and our own domestic laws, absolutely forbidding torture, let's forget about those war crimes and move forward and not move backward. what about those who committed countless federal felonies by illegally spied on american citizens? he said let's forget about it. he did the same thing when he was in the united states senate after he promised opposite to everybody before he got the democratic nomination. he voted for retroactive
11:45 am
immunity for the telecom companies to participated in the illegal surveillance program. that shows the utter disregard to the rule of law. we need to demand more of our leaders. [applause] >> virgil good. >> if i were president, i would have vetoed ndaa. [applause] >> why can we all be that simple? governor terry >> because, larry, this is pitching oneself to vote for me. so i will try to take advantage of shamelessly pitching myself here. i would veto the act allowing for you and i as u.s. citizens to be arrested and detained without a charge. what is really significant, last december, the aclu can now
11:46 am
with the report card on all the presidential candidates. i apologize for the three others on states that were not in this report card. aclu, take your dedicated to civil liberties and the constitution. a group dedicated to the first 10 amendments of the constitution. this is really important. 24 liberty torches' with the convicts corporate mitt romney and rick santorum had zero the report is out of 24. newt gingrich had four liberty toure just out of 24. barack obama had 16 liberty torch's out of 24. my hero, ron paul, 18 liberty torch's out of 24. and gary johnson had 21 out of 24. [applause] >> okay. [laughter]
11:47 am
anybody with a rebuttal? i guess you all agree on that. we go to question no. six. we will, by the way, have a discussion on this and two- minute closing comments. we will start with a rocky. it was selected by my editorial team. but in the post to facebook, he asks - we start with a rocky. if you had the opportunity to write one constitutional amendment with an absolute guarantee it would be approved by congress and then following that, what would you a man? >> i have already written it -- please take a look at our website -- it is the new equal rights amendment promising that
11:48 am
equal rights under law and will never be a bridge on account of gender or sexual orientation. guarantee it would be[applause] it is time we had federal protection for members of our community lgbt and prohibit discrimination on account of gender. that amendment failed by not getting the approval only three states in this country. it is high time we revived and had sexual orientation and gender identification and make that statement as a nation that we will never allow discrimination on those grounds of again. [applause] >> do you think that would pass today? >> i think it would pass if the people made it clear that we insist upon and there will be a heavy political price paid by
11:49 am
anyone in congress or in the white house who opposes it. it is really up to us. major social movements in this country always start at the grass-roots level. we are the leaders. let's make them follow us. [applause] >> virgil, how would you amend the constitution? >> term limits. [applause] if we don't adopt term limits, you will continue to have a congress that is always or about the next election instead of what is best for the country. let me say this -- if we could get it through congress, you might have to grandfather all the members of congress out right now which i would not want to do but you might have to. i am for term limits between six years and 12 years. i don't care what it is, it would enhance washington so coud
11:50 am
much because it is a constant worry about the next election. where is the next fund raiser going to be? who are the pacs going to be giving me money? you watched a chicago television. it is constant advertising and the pacs are the biggest contributors. if we could get it through the house and the senate, it would go like a night after a hot bader of the state legislatures, term limits. [applause] >> as a follow-up, do you think they would vote themselves out of office? >> no, you would probably have to grandfathered those and i think you'd get it through if you could grandfather it and let it start by giving them 12 more years and that would get it through. >> governor, what is your constitutional amendment? >> term limits.
11:51 am
the root of all evil is politicians that beat their chests and in the name of electing me or re-elect me, we will end the war on terror, we will take care of the illegal immigrant, we'll take care of health care, we will have free education for everybody, we will and the drug wars -- you name it, elect me, re-elect me, i will save the world. congress gets elected. i hear congressional ads running all the time. we need to balance the federal budget and the next ad that runs is here is the bacon i brought home to my state amounting to billions of dollars and if you much because it is a constant want the bacon to be -- to continue to be brought home, but for me. i am living proof that term limits work. i really enjoyed being governor of new mexico. i really enjoyed it but i knew that i was term limited. i had eight years. i pushed the envelope -- would like to have pushed the envelope if i had more time?
11:52 am
i don't think i did. i'd like a push to just far enough to get reelected and i got reelected in a state that was two-one democrat but i got reelected so this is all about doing the right thing. i do not want to leave office thinking should have, could have, would have. term limits really is the silver bullet. politicians would get elected and do the right thing as opposed to whatever it takes to get elected and reelected. [applause] >> jil, how would to amend the constitution? >> my concern is that even with term limits, but unfortunately, corporations and big money can still buy what they want and are still buying our candidates. [applause] they get them into office anyhow whether it is for four years or 80 years.
11:53 am
i want to pass the amendment that will clarify that money is not speech and corporations are not people. [applause] by stealing our rights of personhood, corporations have done exactly that. they have gotten the rights of personhood and taken away our rights of personhood. corporations can fight and stop and blocked laws that we need to protect our air and water and climate and worker safety and public health and campaign finance. these are not constitutional issues that belong to corporations. these are political questions that should be decided by communities for the political
11:54 am
and legislative process. should not be precluded from forming along as we decide we need because corporations say that our forming such laws it and protecting ourselves against the constitution. that is a violation of what the writers of the constitution intended. i will support that amendment to clarify and get our constitutional rights back from the corporations that have seized them. [applause] >> this has been a very lively evening. he will each have two minutes to close, is that correct? >> that's correct. we will go next in line to virgil. >> this is two minutes closing statements. say anything you like.
11:55 am
>> again, thanks to free and equal and thanks to larry king, thanks to gary, rocky, and jill. [applause] open up the process, give opportunities to americans and we will have a better and greater country. four things we have to do right away -- balance the budget now, not 10 years down the road. jobs in america for american citizens first -- i am the only candidate that has advocated a near complete moratorium on green card foreign worker admissions into this country until unemployment is under 5%. it makes no sense to bring in so many foreign workers when we need jobs in america for u.s. citizens first. [applause] thirdly, i agree with jill on
11:56 am
super pacs defining i don't think -- i think it can be done with legislation. want to see political action committees eliminated. individual donations of like a mouth full transparency, and we need to end of the super pacs that are about controlling federal elections. it is time for grass-roots candidates like virgil goode to be a candidate and he will work for term limits as well. [applause] >> governor? >> i would not be standing here before you right now if i did not think i could do a really good job as president of the united states. i am basing that on the resume that i have. i have been an opera are my entire life.
11:57 am
i started a one-man handyman business when i was a junior in college and for that business to employ over 1000 people in albuquerque. it is amazing what can happen when you do what you say you will do and when you show up on time. it is just amazing. i sold that business in 1999. nobody lost their jobs, business is doing better than ever. as governor of new mexico, i ran completely outside the political system and got elected republican governor in a state that was two-one democrat i sold that business in 1999. and made a name for myself vetoing legislation. i may have vetoed more legislation than the other 49 governors in the country combined. i vetoed 750 bills, i have thousands of line item vetoes that made a difference when the kings to billions of dollars and made a difference when it came to laws that would told you or i. what we could or could not do in the bedroom. with regard to immigration, i think that is a hot-button issue.
11:58 am
it highlights the differences between me and everybody else. and made a name for myself let's start off with the premise that immigration is really a good thing. let's make it as easy as possible for somebody to want to come into this country and work to get a work of the set. not a green card, not citizenship, but a work visa so applicable taxes would get paid and we would have no criminals working in this country. we hear about wasted a vote right now. wasting your vote is voting for somebody that you don't believe them. that is wasting your vote. [applause] i am asking everybody here, everybody watching this nationwide, to waste your vote on may -- both for me, gary johnson. i guarantee you that nobody will regret me as the next president of united states. you will find somebody that will wake up every single day and take on the debates and
11:59 am
discussions that need to be happening in this country and are not happening today because of a lack of leadership. [applause] >> thank you, governor. jill, two minutes. >> there is a famous saying from alice walker -- the biggest way people give up power is by not knowing we have to start with. [applause] in fact, there are 90 million voters who are not coming out to vote in this election. that is one out of every two voters. is twice as many as the number who will come out for barack obama and twice as many who will come out for mitt romney. those are voters who are saying no to politics as usual and saying no to the democratic and republican party. imagine if we got out the word to those 90 million voters that
12:00 pm
they actually have a variety of choices and voices in this election. i want to focus especially on those 36 million students and young people and recent graduates who are effectively indentured servants because of the high unemployment rate and the draconian unforgiving loans that have been customized especially for students lacking any consumer protection. if those students decided to stand up and go to the polls and come out and vote for free public higher education, for ending student debt, for bailing out the students and breaking up the banks instead of the other way around, which is what they are doing, we could turn politics in this country on its head on november 6. i encourage you to go to my web site and get the word out. there is a choice in this election to take back our
12:01 pm
democracy, to create jobs for everyone through a free new deal that will put an end to climate change and make war for oil obsolete. can do this now by standing up and making it so. [applause] >> finally, rocky anderson. >> if there had been a candidate included in the obama- romney debate that challenged our plutocracy, our government that has run by and for the benefit of monstrous corporations rather than in the interest of the people of this country. we know the republican democrats have some differences but both of them have morphed into an anti-democratic force that has betrayed basic human and civil rights. we know both of these major candidates have been bought and paid for.
12:02 pm
that is why neither of them stands for health care for all. that is why neither of them ever talk about breaking the stranglehold the military- industrial complex has on our government. that is why neither of them talk about providing the essential leadership on the climate crisis, the greatest tragedy facing births in habitants. [applause] obama and romney have refused to discuss -- discuss the corrupting influence of money flowing from wall street banks from the insurance companies, a pharmaceutical industry, the fossil fuel industry or military contractors because they are the recipients of that corrupting money. neither of these dominant party candidates will have called for federal protection for marriage equality. there have called an end to the insane war on drugs or the implementation of a wpa-like
12:03 pm
initiative that would hire millions of workers. thank you for providing this opportunity to present democratic solutions and the public interest on which we can all work together far beyond this election. [applause] >> first of all, as a moderator and host for 55 years, i have always believed in free speech and the right of people to throw their hat into the ring and for the right of people to be hurt heqaard. i introduced ross perot and got to hear his thoughts and john anderson before that in illinois. ralph nader and others so come forward to go to the battle.
12:04 pm
you are the don quixotes in a way and the windmills' have a way of stopping and we have a way of saluting you just to get into the fray so i thank you for your efforts, all you have done. i want to salute cristina and what she does. [applause] >> thank you. >> how did free and equal start? >> it came from my dad. jim tobin ran for governor back in 1998. today is his birthday so happy birthday, dad. this is my legacy. we are in non-partisan organization igniting the grass roots and bring the power back to the people. [applause] >> christianne has and closing remarks and i want to tag gary
12:05 pm
johnson, bill stein, and virgil goode, and rocky anderson. thank you to the audience as well. [applause] outlook turned over to christina tobin for the close. >> i want to thank larry king for being a dream come true. [applause] my executive producer and producer and the whole crew people, thank you to them and all of our supporters out there and the candidates and a week, the people. i have good news for you -- how many people enjoyed this debate tonight? [applause] [applause]
12:06 pm
[applause] >> wow. [applause] how many people want to see a second debate? [applause]
12:07 pm
we are a non-partisan organization that all donations go to creative things like this and we are doing big things after the election. we are holding a debate next tuesday in washington, d.c., 9:00 p.m. eastern time. [applause] and thanks to one of our sponsors, rob ritchie. we will implement instant run off voting and you can go on line to vote for the candidate you want. you have 24 hours to votes to go on line and go home today to vote and on thursday morning, we will announce the two candidates with the most votes will be in washington, d.c. to debate on international issues. please, but tonight, free and
12:08 pm [applause] thank you, larry. >> thank you all very much in a great pleasure to be with you and i love coming to chicago. thank you very much. >> we, the people. >> good night, everybody. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]
12:09 pm
>> this week, third-party candidates debated in chicago. c-span is asking -- here is what some of you have to say. >> it was a breath of fresh air to is -- hear a different perspective, other than red or blue. about wasting vote, it wasted vote is voting for someone who lies to you, or not vote at all. vote your conscience. both for the candidate who really speaks the truth. >> the last time in 2008, i voted for the libertarian candidate because i could not
12:10 pm
stomach obama or mccain. this time, i am not taking any chances. i am voting for romney. i am sorry. i can relate to the third party supporters doubt. let's get realistic here. a third party boat, most of them are conservative. a third party boat is a vote for obama, so you better vote for romney. >> i started voting for obama and would be voting for obama, but after this debate, i fear there was more common sense in the first 30 minutes then there has been in the entire obama- romney fiasco. i will be voting independent, i will say, gary johnson. >> i am between carey johnson and jill stein. if i had the choice to choose rocky, i would choose him. i did that really know him before this debate. >> people voting for the third
12:11 pm
party candidates are just taking away a vote for either a democrat or republican. they are just wasting our time. it will be one of the two in office. >> i have learned more and have heard more of my question to enter it with a third party that with obama or romney. what is sad, with a democrat and republican party, they have the money, and the third party, they do not have a chance to voice their opinion. >> as we follow the candidates on the road to the white house, watch and engage with c-span. >> we are reflecting some of our caller's dues -- views.
12:12 pm
again, #cspan2012. you can watch many of these videos on our media library. looking forward to live coverage on monday, steve forbes, talking about the role of government and free-market. he is co-author of the book "freedom manifesto." that is live from the heritage foundation to more eastern. president obama will campaign with former president bill clinton tomorrow in youngstown, ohio. the rally begins at 5:30 eastern. u.s. ambassadors to kuwait and somalia discuss conflict zones in light of the attacks in libya and egypt. that is live tomorrow beginning at 7:30 p.m. eastern.
12:13 pm
>> one of 10,000 homes that they are trying to get done in the next four years. in that term, these are houses that are never coming back. >> there is one family every 20 minutes moving out. >> these houses are disappearing from the landscape. >> recently, 164 firefighters were laid off as part of this downsizing, as part of this effort for the mayor to get the finances under control in the city. firefighters, which detroit needs -- i think it must have the highest case of arson in the country -- these guys are laid off. two weeks later, miraculously, 100 more are hired.
12:14 pm
when you look where it comes from, the department of homeland security has a fund for things like that. i do not want to overstate, but that is something you want to think about. the department of homeland security needed to step in to keep detroit as safe as it could be for the moment. it could be safer. i wondered, making this film, receiving the auto industry bailout, we have seen the bank bailout. are we looking at bailouts of cities? is there such thing as a failed city? >> tonight at 8:00 on "q & a." >> barack obama and mitt romney met in their third and final debate. the candidates sat down at lynn university in boca raton, fla.
12:15 pm
bob schieffer as moderator. this is one hour and half. >> good evening from the campus of lynn university here in boca raton, florida. this is the fourth and last debate of the 2012 campaign, brought to you by the commission on presidential debates. this one's on foreign policy. i'm bob schieffer of cbs news. the questions are mine, and i have not shared them with the candidates or their aides. the audience has taken a vow of silence -- no applause, no reaction of any kind except right now when we welcome president barack obama and governor mitt romney.
12:16 pm
gentlemen, your campaigns have agreed to certain rules and they are simple. they have asked me to divide the evening into segments. i'll pose a question at the beginning of each segment. you will each have two minutes to respond, and then we will have a general discussion until we move to the next segment. tonight's debate, as both of your know, comes on the 50th anniversary of the night that president kennedy told the world that the soviet union had installed nuclear missiles in cuba -- perhaps the closest we've ever come to nuclear war. and it is a sobering reminder that every president faces at some point an unexpected threat to our national security from abroad. so let's begin. the first segment is the
12:17 pm
challenge of a changing middle east and the new face of terrorism. i'm going to put this into two segments, so you'll have two topic questions within this one segment on that subject. the first question, and it concerns libya, the controversy over what happened there continues. four americans are dead, including an american ambassador. questions remain. what happened? what caused it? was it spontaneous? was it an intelligence failure? was it a policy failure? was there an attempt to mislead people about what really happened? governor romney, you said this was an example of an american policy in the middle east that is unraveling before our very eyes. i'd like to hear each of you give your thoughts on that. governor romney, you won the toss. you go first. >> thank you, bob, and thank you for agreeing to moderate this debate this evening.
12:18 pm
thank you to lynn university for welcoming us here, and mr. president, it's good to be with you again. we were together at a humorous event a little earlier, and it's nice to maybe be funny this time not on purpose. we'll see what happens. this is obviously an area of great concern to the entire world and to america in particular, which is to see a -- a complete change in the -- the structure and the -- the environment in the middle east. with the arab spring came a great deal of hope that there would be a change towards more moderation and opportunity for greater participation on the part of women and -- and public life and in economic life in the middle east. but instead we've seen in nation after nation a number of disturbing events. of course, we see in syria 30,000 civilians having been killed by the military there. we see in -- in libya an attack apparently by -- well, i think we know now by terrorists of some kind against -- against our people there, four people dead. our hearts and minds go to them. mali has been taken over, the
12:19 pm
northern part of mali, by al- qaeda-type individuals. we have in -- in egypt a muslim brotherhood president. and so what we're seeing is a -- a pretty dramatic reversal in the kind of hopes we had for that region. of course, the greatest threat of all is iran, four years closer to a nuclear weapon. and -- and we're going to have to recognize that we have to do as the president has done. i congratulate him on -- on taking out osama bin laden and going after the leadership in al-qaeda. but we can't kill our way out of this mess. we're -- we're going to have to put in place a very comprehensive and robust strategy to help the -- the world of islam and -- and other parts of the world reject this radical violent extremism which is -- it's really not on the run. it's certainly not hiding. this is a group that is now involved in 10 or 12 countries, and it presents an enormous threat to our friends, to the world, to america long term, and we must have a comprehensive strategy to help reject this kind of extremism.
12:20 pm
>> mr. president. >> well, my first job as commander in chief, bob, is to keep the american people safe, and that's what we've done over the last four years. we ended the war in iraq, refocused our attention on those who actually killed us on 9/11. and as a consequence, al-qaeda's core leadership has been decimated. in addition, we're now able to transition out of afghanistan in a responsible way, making sure that afghans take responsibility for their own security, and that allows us also to rebuild alliances and make friends around the world to combat future threats. now, with respect to libya, as i indicated in the last debate, when we received that phone call, i immediately made sure that, number one, we did everything we could to secure those americans who were still in harm's way; number two, that we would investigate exactly what happened; and number
12:21 pm
three, most importantly, that we would go after those who killed americans, and we would bring them to justice, and that's exactly what we're going to do. but i think it's important to step back and think about what happened in libya. now, keep in mind that i and americans took leadership in organizing an international coalition that made sure that we were able to -- without putting troops on the ground, at the cost of less than what we spent in two weeks in iraq -- liberate a country that had been under the yoke of dictatorship for 40 years, got rid of a despot who had killed americans. and as a consequence, despite this tragedy, you had tens of thousands of libyans after the events in benghazi marching and saying, america's our friend. we stand with them. now that represents the opportunity we have to take advantage of. and you know, governor romney, i'm glad that you agree that we have been successful in going after al-qaeda, but i have to
12:22 pm
tell you that, you know, your strategy previously has been one that has been all over the map and is not designed to keep americans safe or to build on the opportunities that exist in the middle east. >> well, my strategy's pretty straightforward, which is to go after the bad guys, to make sure we do our very best to interrupt them, to -- to kill them, to take them out of the picture. strategy previously has beenbutn -- than that. that's -- that's important, of course, but the key that we're going to have to pursue is a -- is a pathway to -- to get the muslim world to be able to reject extremism on its own. we don't want another iraq. we don't want another afghanistan. that's not the right course for us. the right course for us is to make sure that we go after the -- the people who are leaders of these various anti-american groups and these -- these jihadists, but also help the muslim world. and how we do that? a group of arab scholars came together, organized by the u.n., to look at how we can help the -- the world reject these -- these terrorists. and the answer they came up was
12:23 pm
this. one, more economic development. we should key our foreign aid, our direct foreign investment and that of our friends -- we should coordinate it to make sure that we -- we push back and give them more economic development. number two, better education. number three, gender equality. number four, the rule of law. we have to help these nations create civil societies. but what's been happening over the last couple years as we watched this tumult in the middle east, this rising tide of chaos occur, you see al- qaeda rushing in, you see other jihadist groups rushing in. and -- and they're throughout many nations of the middle east. it's wonderful that libya seems to be making some progress, despite this terrible tragedy, but next door, of course, we have egypt. libya's 6 million population, egypt 80 million population. we want -- we want to make sure that we're seeing progress throughout the middle east. with mali now having north mali taken over by al-qaeda, with syria having assad continuing to -- or to kill -- to murder his own people, this is a region in tumult.
12:24 pm
and of course iran on the path to a nuclear weapon. we've got real gaps in the region. >> we'll get to that, but let's give the president a chance. >> governor romney, i'm glad that you recognize that al- qaeda's a threat because a few months ago when you were asked, what's the biggest geopolitical threat facing america, you said russia -- not al-qaeda, you said russia. and the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the cold war's been over for 20 years. but, governor, when it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s, just like the social policies of the 1950s and the economic policies of the 1920s. you say that you're not interested in duplicating what happened in iraq, but just a few weeks ago you said you think we should have more troops in iraq right now. and the -- the challenge we have -- i know you haven't been in a position to actually execute foreign policy, but every time you've offered an opinion, you've been wrong. you said we should have gone
12:25 pm
into iraq despite the fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction. you said that we should still have troops in iraq to this day. you indicated that we shouldn't be passing nuclear treaties with russia, despite the fact that 71 senators, democrats and republicans, voted for it. you've said that first we should not have a timeline in afghanistan then you said we should. now you say maybe or it depends, which means not only were you wrong but you were also confusing and sending mixed messages both to our troops and our allies. so what -- what we need to do with respect to the middle east is strong, steady leadership, not wrong and reckless leadership that is all over the map. and unfortunately, that's the kind of opinions that you've offered throughout this campaign, and it is not a recipe for american strength or keeping america safe over the long term. >> i'm going to add a couple of minutes here to give you a
12:26 pm
chance to respond. >> well, of course i don't concur with what the president said about my own record and the things that i've said. they don't happen to be accurate. but -- but i can say this-- that we're talking about the middle east and how to help the middle east reject the kind of terrorism we're seeing and the rising tide of tumult and -- and confusion. and -- and attacking me is not an agenda. attacking me is not talking about how we're going to deal with the challenges that exist in the middle east and take advantage of the opportunity there and stem the tide of this violence. but i'll respond to a couple of the things you mentioned. first of all, russia, i indicated, is a geopolitical foe, not -- >> number one -- >> excuse me. it's a geopolitical foe. and i said in the same -- in the same paragraph, i said, and iran is the greatest national security threat we face. russia does continue to battle us in the u.n. time and time again. i have clear eyes on this. i'm not going to wear rose- colored glasses when it comes to russia or mr. putin, and i'm certainly not going to say to him, i'll give you more flexibility after the election. after the election he'll get
12:27 pm
more backbone. number two, with regards to iraq, you and i agreed, i believe, that there should have been a status of forces agreement. did you -- >> that's not true. >> oh, you didn't -- you didn't want a status of forces agreement? >> no, but what i -- what i would not have done is left 10,000 troops in iraq that would tie us down. that certainly would not help us in the middle east. >> i'm sorry, you actually -- there was a -- >> here -- here is -- here is -- >> there was an effort on the part of the president to have a status of forces agreement. and i concurred in that and said we should have some number of troops that stayed on. that was something i concurred with. >> governor -- >> that was your posture. that was my posture as well. i thought it should have been 5,000 troops. >> governor -- >> i thought it should have been more troops. but you -- >> this is just a few weeks ago. >> the answer was, we got no troop -- whatsoever. >> this is just a few weeks ago that you indicated that we should still have troops in iraq. >> no, i didn't. i'm sorry, that's -- >> you made a major speech. >> i indicated -- i indicated that you failed to put in place a status of forces agreement at the end of the conflict that -- >> governor -- >> governor, here's -- here's one thing -- here's one thing -- here's one thing i've learned as commander in chief. >> let him have -- >> you've got to be clear, both
12:28 pm
to our allies and our enemies, about where you stand and what you mean. now, you just gave a speech a few weeks ago in which you said we should still have troops in iraq. that is not a recipe for making sure that we are taking advantage of the opportunities and meeting the challenges of the middle east. now, it is absolutely true that we cannot just beat these challenges militarily, and so what i've done throughout my presidency and will continue to do, is, number one, make sure that these countries are supporting our counterterrorism efforts; number two, make sure that they are standing by our interests in israel's security, because it is a true friend and our greatest ally in the region. number three, we do have to make sure that we're protecting religious minorities and women because these countries can't develop unless all the population -- not just half of it -- is developing. number four, we do have to develop their economic -- their economic capabilities. but number five, the other thing that we have to do is recognize that we can't continue to do nation building in these
12:29 pm
regions. part of american leadership is making sure that we're doing nation building here at home. that will help us maintain the kind of american leadership that we need. >> let me interject the second topic question in this segment about the middle east and so on, and that is, you both mentioned -- alluded to this, and that is syria. the war in syria has now spilled over into lebanon. we have, what, more than a hundred people that were killed there in a bomb. there were demonstrations there, eight people dead. mr. president, it's been more than a year since you saw -- you told assad he had to go. since then 30,000 syrians have died. we've had 300,000 refugees. the war goes on. he's still there. should we reassess our policy and see if we can find a better way to influence events there, or is that even possible? and it's you -- you go first, sir. >> what we've done is organize the international community,
12:30 pm
saying assad has to go. we've mobilized sanctions against that government. we have made sure that they are isolated. we have provided humanitarian assistance, and we are helping the opposition organize, and we're particularly interested in making sure that we're mobilizing the moderate forces inside of syria. but ultimately, syrians are going to have to determine their own future. and so everything we're doing, we're doing in consultation with our partners in the region, including israel, which obviously has a huge interest in seeing what happens in syria, coordinating with turkey and other countries in the region that have a great interest in this. now, this -- what we're seeing taking place in syria is heartbreaking, and that's why we are going to do everything we can to make sure that we are helping the opposition. but we also have to recognize that, you know, for us to get more entangled militarily in syria is a serious step. and we have to do so making absolutely certain that we know who we are helping, that we're
12:31 pm
not putting arms in the hands of folks who eventually could turn them against us or our allies in the region. and i am confident that assad's days are numbered. but what we can't do is to simply suggest that, as governor romney at times has suggested, that giving heavy weapons, for example, to the syrian opposition is a simple proposition that would lead us to be safer over the long term. >> governor. >> well, let's step back and talk about what's happening in syria and how important it is. first of all, 30,000 people being killed by their government is a humanitarian disaster. secondly, syria's an opportunity for us because syria plays an important role in the middle east, particularly right now. syria is iran's only ally in the arab world. it's their route to the sea. it's the route for them to arm hezbollah in lebanon, which threatens, of course, our ally israel. and so seeing syria remove assad is a very high priority for us. number two, seeing a -- a replacement government being
12:32 pm
responsible people is critical for us. and finally, we don't want to have military involvement there. we don't want to get drawn into a military conflict. and so the right course for us is working through our partners and with our own resources to identify responsible parties within syria, organize them, bring them together in a -- in a form of -- of -- if not government, a form of -- of council that can take the lead in syria, and then make sure they have the arms necessary to defend themselves. we do need to make sure that they don't have arms that get into the -- the wrong hands. those arms could be used to hurt us down the road. we need to make sure as well that we coordinate this effort with our allies and particularly with -- with -- with israel. but the saudis and the qatari and -- and -- and the turks are all very concerned about this. they're willing to work with us. we need to have a very effective leadership effort in syria, making sure that the -- the -- the insurgents there are armed and that the insurgents that become armed are people who
12:33 pm
will be the responsible parties. recognize i believe that assad must go. i believe he will go. but i believe we want to make sure that we have the relationships of friendship with the people that take his place such that in the years to come we see syria as a -- as a friend and syria as a responsible party in the middle east. this -- this is a critical opportunity for america. and what i'm afraid of is that we've watched over the past year or so first the president saying, well, we'll let the u.n. deal with it, and assad -- excuse me, kofi annan came in and -- and said, we're going to try -- have a cease-fire. that didn't work. then it looked to the russians and said, see if you can do something. we should. we should be playing the leadership role there, not on the ground with military -- >> all right. >> -- by the leadership role. >> we are -- we playing the leadership role. we organized the "friends of syria. " we are mobilizing humanitarian support and support for the opposition. and we are making sure that that those we help are those who will be friends of ours in the long term and friends of our allies in the region over the long term. but you know, going back to
12:34 pm
libya, because this is an example of -- of how we make choices, you know, when we went into libya and we were able to immediately stop the massacre there because of the unique circumstances and the coalition that we had helped to organize, we also had to make sure that moammar gadhafi didn't stay there. and to the governor's credit, you supported us going into libya and the coalition that we organized. but when it came time to making sure that gadhafi did not stay in power, that he was captured, governor, your suggestion was that this was mission creep, that this was mission muddle. imagine if we had pulled out at that point. that -- moammar gadhafi had more american blood on his hands than any individual other than osama bin laden. and so we were going to make sure that we finished the job. that's part of the reason why the libyans stand with us. but we did so in a careful, thoughtful way, making certain that we knew who we were dealing with, that those forces of moderation on the ground
12:35 pm
were ones that we could work with. and we have to take the same kind of steady, thoughtful leadership when it comes to syria. that's exactly what we're doing. >> governor, can i just ask you, would you go beyond what the administration would do? like, for example, would you put in no-fly zones over syria? >> i don't -- i don't want to have our military involved in -- in syria. i don't think there's a necessity to put our military in syria at -- at this stage. i don't anticipate that in the future. as i indicated, our objectives are to replace assad and to have in place a new government which is friendly to us -- a responsible government, if possible. and i want to make sure the get armed and they have the arms necessary to defend themselves but also to remove -- to remove assad. but i do not want to see a military involvement on the part of -- of our -- of our troops. and this isn't -- this isn't going to be necessary. we have -- with our partners in the region, we have sufficient resources to support those groups. but look, this has been going on for a year.
12:36 pm
this is a time -- this should have been a time for american leadership. we should have taken a leading role -- not militarily, but a leading role organizationally, governmentally, to bring together the parties there to find responsible parties. as you hear from intelligence sources even today, the insurgents are highly disparate. they haven't come together. they haven't formed a unity group, a council of some kind. that needs to happen. america can help that happen. and we need to make sure they have the arms they need to carry out the very important role, which is getting rid of assad. >> could we get a quick response, mr. president, because i want to ask -- >> well, i'll -- i'll -- i'll be -- i'll be very quick. what you just heard governor romney said is he doesn't have different ideas, and that's because we're doing exactly what we should be doing to try to promote a moderate, syrian leadership and a -- an effective transition so that we get assad out. that's the kind of leadership we've shown. that's the kind of leadership
12:37 pm
we'll continue to show. >> may i ask you, you know, during the egyptian turmoil, there came a point when you said it was time for president mubarak to go. >> right. leadership>> some in your admin thought perhaps we shoulddo yout that? >> no, i don't because i think that america has to stand with democracy. the notion that we would have tanks run over those young people who were in tahrir square, that is not the kind of american leadership that john f. kennedy talked about 50 years ago. but what i've also said is that now that you have a democratically elected government in egypt, that they have to make sure that they take responsibility for protecting religious minorities -- and we have put significant pressure on them to make sure they're doing that -- to recognize the rights of women, which is critical throughout the region. have waited a while on that. these countries can't develop if young women are not given the kind of education that they need.
12:38 pm
they have to abide by their treaty with israel. that is a red line for us, because not only is israel's security at stake, but our security is at stake if that unravels. they have to make sure that they're cooperating with us when it comes to counterterrorism. and we will help them with respect to developing their own economy, because ultimately, what's going to make the egyptian revolution successful for the people of egypt but also for the world is if those young people who gathered there are seeing opportunities. their aspirations are similar to young people's here. they want jobs. they want to be able to make sure their kids are going to a good school. they want to make sure that they have a roof over their heads and that they have a -- the prospects of a better life in the future. and so one of the things that we've been doing is -- is, for example, organizing entrepreneurship conferences with these egyptians to -- to give them a sense of how they can start rebuilding their economy in a way that's noncorrupt, that's transparent. but what is also important for us to understand is -- is that
12:39 pm
for america to be successful in this region, there are some things that we're going to have to do here at home as well. you know, one of the challenges over the last decade is we've done experiments in nation building in places like iraq and afghanistan. and we've neglected, for example, developing our own economy, our own energy sectors, our own education system. and it's very hard for us to project leadership around the world when we're not doing what we need to do here. >> governor romney, i want to hear your response to that, but i would just ask you, would you have stuck with mubarak? >> no, i believe, as the president indicated and said at the time, that i supported his -- his action there. i felt that -- i wish we'd have had a better vision of the future. i wish that, looking back at the beginning of the president's term and even further back than that, that we'd have recognized
12:40 pm
that there was a growing energy and passion for freedom in that part of the world and that we would have worked more aggressively with our -- our friend and with other friends in the region to have them make the transition towards a more representative form of government such that it didn't explode in the way it did. but once it exploded, i felt the same as the president did, which is these -- these freedom voices in the -- the streets of egypt where the people who were speaking of our principles and the -- the -- president mubarak had done things which were unimaginable, and the idea of him crushing his people was not something that we could possibly support. let me -- let me step back and talk about what i think our mission has to be in the middle east, and even more recognized that there was a growing energy and passion for freedom in that part of the world and that we would have worked more aggressively with our -- our friend and with other friends in the region to have them make the transition towards a more representative form broadly, because our purpose is to make sure the world is more -- is peaceful. we want a peaceful planet. we want people to be able to enjoy their lives and know they're going to have a bright and prosperous future and not be at war. that's our purpose. and the mantle of -- of leadership for promoting the principles of peace has fallen to america. we didn't ask for it, but it's an honor that we have it. but for us to be able to promote those principles of peace requires us to be strong, and that begins with a strong economy here at home, and unfortunately, the economy is not stronger. when the -- when the -- the president of iraq -- excuse me
12:41 pm
-- of iran, ahmadinejad, says that our debt makes us not a great country, that's a frightening thing. the former chief of -- chief of the joints chief of staff said that -- admiral mullen -- said that our debt is the biggest national security threat we face. this -- we have weakened our economy. we need a strong economy. we need to have as well a strong military. our military is second to none in the world. we're blessed with terrific soldiers and extraordinary technology and intelligence. but the idea of a trillion dollars in cuts through sequestration and budget cuts to the military would change that. we need to have strong allies. our association and -- and connection with our allies is essential to america's strength. we're the -- the great nation that has allies, 42 allies and friends around the world. and finally, we have to stand by our principles. and if we're strong in each of those things, american influence will grow. but unfortunately, in nowhere in the world is america's influence greater today than it was four years ago. >> all right. >> and that's because we've become weaker on each of those four dimensions. >> all right -- perfect. you're going to get a chance to
12:42 pm
respond to that because that's a perfect segue into our next segment, and that is what is america's role in the world. and that is the question. what do each of you see as our role in the world? and i believe, governor romney, it's your turn to go first. >> well, i -- i absolutely believe that america has a -- a responsibility and the privilege of helping defend freedom and promote the principles that -- that make the world more peaceful. and those principles include human rights, human dignity, free enterprise, freedom of expression, elections, because when there are elections, people tend to vote for peace. they don't vote for war. so we want to -- to promote those principles around the world. we recognize that there are places of conflict in the world. we want to end those conflicts to the extent humanly possible. but in order to be able to fulfill our role in the world, america must be strong. america must lead. and for that to happen, we have
12:43 pm
to strengthen our economy here at home. you can't have 23 million people struggling to get a job. you -- you can't have an economy that over the last three years keeps slowing down its growth rate. you can't have kids coming out of college, half of whom can't find a job today, or a job that's commensurate with their college degree. we have to get our economy going. and our military -- we've got to strengthen our military long- term. we don't know what the world is going to throw at us down the road. we -- we make decisions today in a military that -- that will confront challenges we can't imagine. in the 2000 debates there was no mention of terrorism, for instance. and a year later, 9/11 happened. so we have to make decisions based upon uncertainty. and that means a strong military. i will not cut our military budget. we have to also stand by our allies. i think the tension that existed between israel and the united states was very unfortunate. i think also that pulling our missile defense program out of poland in the way we was also unfortunate in terms of, if you will, disrupting the
12:44 pm
relationship in some ways that existed between us. and then of course, with regards to standing for our principles, when -- when the students took to the streets in tehran and the people there protested, the green revolution occurred. for the president to be silent i thought was an enormous mistake. we have to stand for our principles, stand for our allies, stand for a strong military and stand for a stronger economy. >> mr. president. >> america remains the one indispensable nation. and the world needs a strong america. and it is stronger now then when i came into office. because we ended the war in iraq, we were able to refocus our attention on not only the terrorist threat but also beginning a transition process in afghanistan. it also allowed us to refocus on alliances and relationships that had been neglected for a decade. and, governor romney, our alliances have never been stronger. in asia, in europe, in africa,
12:45 pm
with israel where we have unprecedented military and intelligence cooperation, including dealing with the iranian threat. but what we also have been able to do is position ourselves so we can start rebuilding america. and that's what my plan does-- making sure that we're bringing manufacturing back to our shores so that we're creating jobs here, as we've done with the auto industry, not rewarding companies that are shipping jobs overseas; making sure that we've got the best education system in the world, including retraining our workers for the jobs of tomorrow; doing everything we can to control our energy. we've cut our oil imports to the lowest level in two decades because we've developed oil and natural gas, but we also have to develop clean energy technologies that will allow us to cut our exports in half by 2020. that's the kind of leadership that we need to show. and we've got to make sure that we reduce our deficit. unfortunately, governor romney's plan doesn't do it. we've got to do it in a
12:46 pm
responsible way, by cutting out spending we don't need but also asking the wealthiest to pay a little bit more. that way we can invest in the research and technology that's always kept us at the cutting edge. now governor romney has taken a different approach throughout this campaign. you know, both at home and abroad, he has proposed wrong and reckless policies. he's praised george bush as good economic steward and dick cheney as somebody who shows great wisdom and judgment. and taking us back to those kinds of strategies that got us into this mess are not the way that we are going to maintain leadership in the 21st century. >> governor romney, wrong and reckless policies? >> i've got a policy for the future and agenda for the future. and when it comes to our economy here at home, i know what it takes to create 12 million new jobs and rising take- home pay. and what we've seen over the last four years is something i don't want to see over the next four years. the -- the president said by now we'd be at 5. 4 percent unemployment. we're 9 million jobs short of
12:47 pm
that. i will get america working again and see rising take- home pay again. and i'll do it with five simple steps. number one, were going to have north american energy independence. we're going to do it by taking full advantage of oil, coal, gas, nuclear and our renewables. number two, we're going to increase our trade. trade grows about 12 percent per year. it doubles about every -- every five or -- or so years. we can do better than that, particularly in latin america. the opportunities for us in latin america we have just not taken advantage of fully. as a matter of fact, latin america's economy is almost as big as the economy of china. we're all focused on china. latin america is a huge opportunity for us-- time zone, language opportunities. number three, we're going to have to have training programs that work for our workers and schools that finally put the parents and the teachers and the
12:48 pm
kids first, and the teachers union's going to have to go behind. and then we're going to have to get to a balanced budget. we can't expect entrepreneurs and businesses large and small to take their life savings or their companies' money and invest in america if they think we're headed to the road to greece. and that's where we're going right now unless we finally get off this spending and borrowing binge. and i'll get us on track to a balanced budget. and finally, number five, we've got to champion small business. small business is where -- where jobs come from. two-thirds of our jobs come from small businesses. new business formation is down to the lowest level in 30 years under this administration. i want to bring it back and get back good jobs and rising take- home pay. >> well, let's talk about what we need to compete. first of all, governor romney talks about small businesses, but governor, when you were in massachusetts, small businesses' development ranked about 48, i think, out of 50 states, in massachusetts, because the policies that you're promoting actually don't help small businesses. and the way you define small businesses include folks at the very top. they include you and me. that's not the kind of small business promotion we need. but -- but let's take an
12:49 pm
example that we know is going to make a difference 21st century, and that's our education policy. we didn't have a lot of chance to talk about this in the last debate. you know, under my leadership, what we've done is reformed education, working with governors, 46 states. we've seen progress and gains in schools that were having a terrible time, and they're starting to finally make progress. and what i now want to do is to hire more teachers, especially in math and science, because we know that we've fallen behind when it comes to math and science. and those teachers can make a difference. now, governor romney, when you were asked by teachers whether or not this would help the economy grow, you said, this isn't going to help the economy grow. when you were asked about reduced class sizes, you said class sizes don't make a difference. but i tell you, if you talk to teachers, they will tell you it does make a difference. and if we've got math teachers who are able to provide the kind of support that they need for our kids, that's what's going to determine whether or not the new businesses are
12:50 pm
created here. companies are going to locate here depending on whether we've got the most highly skilled workforce. and the kinds of budget proposals that you've put forward -- when we don't ask either you or me to pay a dime more in terms of reducing the deficit, but instead we slash support for education, that's undermining our long-term competitiveness. that is not good for america's position in the world. and the world notices. >> let me get back to foreign policy. >> well -- >> can i just get back -- >> well, i need to speak a moment if you'll let me, bob -- >> ok. >> -- just about education, because i'm -- i'm so proud of the state that i had the chance to be governor of. we have, every two years, tests that look at how well our kids are doing. fourth graders and eighth graders are tested in english and math. while i was governor, i was proud that our fourth graders came out number one of all 50 states in english and then also in math, and our eighth graders number one in english and also in math -- first time one state had been number one in all four measures. how did we do that? well, republicans and democrats
12:51 pm
came together on a bipartisan basis to put in place education that focused on having great teachers in the classroom. and that was -- >> ten years earlier -- >> that was -- that was what allowed us to become the number one state in the nation. and this is -- and we were -- >> but that was 10 years before you took office. >> and we -- absolutely. >> gentlemen -- >> and then you cut education spending when you came into office. >> the first -- the first -- and we kept our schools number one in the nation. they're still number one today. and the principles that we've put in place -- we also gave kids not just a graduation exam that -- that determined whether they were up to the skills needed to -- to be able to compete, but also, if they graduated in the top quarter of their class, they got a four- year tuition-free ride at any massachusetts public institution of higher learning. >> that happened -- that happened before you came into office. >> governor -- >> that was actually mine, actually, mr. president. you got that fact wrong. >> let me -- i want to try to shift it, because we have heard some of this in the other debates. governor, you say you want a bigger military. you want a bigger navy. you don't want to cut defense spending. what i want to ask you, we're talking about financial
12:52 pm
problems in this country. where are you going to get the money? >> well, let's -- let's come back and talk about the military, but all the way -- all the way through. first of all, i'm going through, from the very beginning, we're going to cut about 5 percent of the discretionary budget excluding military. that's number one. all right? >> but can you do this without driving us deeper into debt? >> the good news is, i'll be happy to have you take a look. come on our website, you'll look at how we get to a balanced budget within eight to 10 years. we do it by getting -- by reducing spending in a whole series of programs. by the way, number one i get rid of is "obamacare. " there are a number of things that sound good but, frankly, we just can't afford them. and that one doesn't sound good, and it's not affordable, so i get rid of that one from day one; to the extent humanly possible, we get that out. we take program after program that we don't absolutely have to have and we get rid of them. number two, we take some programs that we are going to keep, like medicaid, which is a program for the poor. we're -- take that health care program for the poor, and we give it to the states to run because states run these programs more efficiently. as a governor, i thought,
12:53 pm
please, give me this program. >> can he do that? >> i can run this more efficiently than the federal government. and states, by the way, are proving it. states like arizona, rhode island have taken these medicaid dollars, have shown they can run these programs more cost effectively. >> bob -- >> so i want to do those two things that gets us -- it gets us to a balanced budget with eight in -- eight to 10 years. >> bob -- >> but the military -- >> let -- >> let's go back to the military, though. >> well, that's what i'm trying to find out about. >> let's talk about the military. >> you should have answered the first question. look, governor romney's called for $5 trillion of tax cuts that he says he's going to pay for by closing deductions. now, the math doesn't work but he continues to claim that he's going to do it. he then wants to spend another $2 trillion on military spending that our military's not asking for. now, keep in mind that our military spending has gone up every single year that i've been in office. we spend more on our military than the next 10 countries
12:54 pm
combined -- china, russia, france, the united -- united kingdom, you name it, next 10. and what i did was work with our joint chiefs of staff to think about what are we going to need in the future to make sure that we are safe? and that's the budget that we've put forward. but what you can't do is spend $2 trillion in additional military spending that the military is not asking for, $5 trillion on tax cuts, you say that you're going to pay for it by closing loopholes and deductions without naming what those loopholes and deductions are, and then somehow you're also going to deal with the deficit that we've already got. the math simply doesn't work. but when it comes to our military, what we have to think about is not, you know, just budgets, we got to think about capabilities. we need to be thinking about cybersecurity. we need to be thinking about space. that's exactly what our budget does, but it's driven by strategy. it's not driven by politics.
12:55 pm
it's not driven by members of congress and what they would like to see. it's driven by what are we going to need to keep the american people safe? that's exactly what our budget does. and it also then allows us to reduce our deficit, which is a significant national security concern because we've got to make sure that our economy is strong at home so that we can project military power overseas. >> bob, i'm pleased that i've balanced budgets. i was in the world of business for 25 years. if you didn't balance your budget, you went out of business. i went to the olympics that was out of balance, and we got it on balance and made a success there. i had the chance to be governor of a state. four years in a row, democrats and republicans came together to balance the budget. we cut taxes 19 times, balanced our budget. the president hasn't balanced a budget yet. i expect to have the opportunity to do so myself. >> all right. >> i -- i'm going to be able to balance the budget. let's talk about military spending, and that's this. our navy -- >> about 30 seconds. >> our navy is older -- excuse
12:56 pm
me -- our navy is smaller now than any time since 1917. the navy said they needed 313 ships to carry out their mission. we're now down to 285. we're headed down to the -- to the low 200s if we go through with sequestration. that's unacceptable to me. i want to make sure that we have the ships that are required by our navy. our air force is older and smaller than any time since it was founded in 1947. we've changed for the first time since fdr. we -- since fdr we had the -- we've always had the strategy of saying we could fight in two conflicts at once. now we're changing to one conflict. look, this, in my view, is the highest responsibility of the president of the united states, which is to maintain the safety of the american people. and i will not cut our military budget by a trillion dollars, which is the combination of the budget cuts that the president has as well as the sequestration cuts. that, in my view, is -- is -- is making our future less certain and less secure. i won't do it. >> bob, i just need to comment on this. first of all, the sequester is not something that i proposed. it's something that congress has proposed.
12:57 pm
it will not happen. the budget that we're talking about is not reducing our military spending. it's maintaining it. but i think governor romney maybe hasn't spent enough time looking at how our military works. you -- you mentioned the navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. well, governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets -- because the nature of our military's changed. we have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. we have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines. and so the question is not a game of battleship where we're counting ships. it's -- it's what are our capabilities. and so when i sit down with the secretary of the navy and the joint chiefs of staff, we determine how are we going to be best able to meet all of our defense needs in a way that also keeps faith with our troops, that also makes sure that our veterans have the kind of support that they need when they come home. and that is not reflected in the kind of budget that you're
12:58 pm
putting forward, because it just don't work. >> all right. >> and you know, we've visited the website quite a bit. and it still doesn't work. >> a lot to cover. i'd like -- i'd like to move to the next segment -- red lines, israel and iran. would either of you -- and you'll have two minutes, and president obama, you have the first go at this one. would either of you be willing to declare that an attack on israel is an attack on the united states, which of course is the same promise that we give to our close allies like japan? and if you made such a declaration, would not that deter iran? it's certainly deterred the soviet union for a long, long time when we made that -- when we made that promise to our allies. mr. president. >> well, first of all, israel is a true friend. it is our greatest ally in the region. and if israel is attacked, america will stand with israel. i've made that clear throughout
12:59 pm
my presidency. and -- >> so you're saying we've already made that declaration? >> i will stand with israel if they are attacked. and this is the reason why, working with israel, we have created the strongest military and intelligence cooperation between our two countries in history. in fact, this week we'll be carrying out the largest military exercise with israel in history, this very week. but to the issue of iran, as long as i'm president of the united states, iran will not get a nuclear weapon. i've made that clear when i came into office. we then organized the strongest coalition and the strongest sanctions against iran in history, and it is crippling their economy. their currency has dropped 80 percent. their oil production has plunged to the lowest level since they were fighting a war with iraq 20 years ago. so their economy is in a shambles. and the reason we did this is because a nuclear iran is a threat to our national security
1:00 pm
and it's threat to israel's national security. we cannot afford to have a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region of the world. iran's a state sponsor of terrorism, and for them to be able to provide nuclear technology to nonstate actors -- that's unacceptable. they would like to see israel wiped off the map. they ooffer iran a choice. they can take the diplomatic route and and the nuclear program or they will have to face a united world and a united states president that says that we will not take any options off the table. during the course of this campaign, governor romney has often talked as if we should take premature military action. when i send young men and women
1:01 pm
into harm's way, we see this as a last resort, not a first resort. >> i want to underscore the same point that the president made. if i am president of united states, when i am president of the united states, we will stand with israel. we have their back. but just diplomatically, culturally, and militarily. with regards to iran and iraq, there is no question that a nuclear capable iran is unacceptable to america. it presents a threat to our friends. they have nuclear material that they could use to be threatening to us. it is essential for us to understand what our mission is in iran. that is to dissuade iran from having a nuclear weapon in peaceful ways. they laid out seven steps,
1:02 pm
crippling sanctions. they do work. you are seeing it right now. it is the right thing to do to have crippling sanctions. it is good that we have them. something i would add to that idea, i would tighten those sanctions. ships carry iranian oil cannot come into our ports. i would imagine the e.u. would agree with us. i would tighten those sanctions further. i would take on diplomatic isolation efforts. i would make sure that ahmadinejad would be indicted for genocide. his words about to genocide. i would want them to be treated like the perahia they are across the world. the same way we treated apartheid in south africa. a solution to this which stops this nuclear folly of theirs is unacceptable to america.
1:03 pm
the military action is the last resort. it is something i would only consider if all of the other avenues had been tried to their full extent. >> let me ask you, as you know, there are reports that iran and united states have agreed in principle to talk about iran's nuclear program. what if the deal -- what is the deal that you would accept, mr. president? >> those are reports in the newspaper. they are not true. our goal is to get iran to see that it is to give up its nuclear program and abide by the united nations sanctions put in place. there are people in iran that
1:04 pm
have the same aspirations as all over the world. we hope that their leadership makes the right decision. the deal we'll accept is they'll end their nuclear program. i am glad that governor romney agrees with the steps that we are taking. there have been times during the campaign where you said that you would do the same thing as we did, but you would say it louder. it turns out that the work involved in setting up these crippling sanctions is painstaking. we started from the day you got into the office. we had to make sure that all the countries participated. we have had sanctions in place for a long time. iran is seeing so much pressure. there is a deal to be had. that is that they abide by the
1:05 pm
rules that were established. there are inspections that are very intrusive. over time, what they can do is regain credibility. one last thing, the clock is ticking. we will not allow iran to perpetually engaged in negotiations that lead nowhere. we have a sense of when they would get break out capacity, which means we cannot be able to intervene in time to stop a
1:06 pm
nuclear program. if they do not meet the demands of the international community, then we would make sure that did not have a nuclear weapon. >> from the beginning, when of the challenges of iran is that they looked at this administration and they did not see it as strong as it could be. the president in his campaign said that he would meet with all of the world's worst actors. he would sit down with chavez and kim jong il and castro. they looked and thought that is an unusual honor to receive from the president of the united states. the president began what i call an apology tour of going to
1:07 pm
various nations in the middle east and criticizing americans. they were in the streets of tehran. they were holding signs saying, is america with us? the president was silent. the president said he would create daylight between us and israel. all of these things suggest to the iranian mullahs that we can keep pushing along. there are now 10,000 centrifuges spinning uranium. that is unacceptable to us. it is essential for the president to show strength from the very beginning to make it clear what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. an iranian nuclear program is not acceptable. the way to make sure that they understand is to have from the very beginning be tighter sanctions possible.
1:08 pm
they need to be tightened. that we need to indict ahmadinejad. we need to put the pressure on them as hard as we can. if we do that, we will not have to take military action. >> nothing that governor brown me just said is true starting with the apologizing. this has been the biggest whopper that has been told over the course of the campaign. every fact checkers said that this was not true. we have put in the toughest, most crippling sanctions ever. well we were coordinating an international coalition to make sure that things were effective, you were still invested in a chinese state oil company that was doing business with the iranian sector.
1:09 pm
i will let the american people decide who will be more effective when it comes to imposing crippling sanctions. with respect to our attitude about the iranian revolution, i was very clear about the murderous activities that had taken place that was contrary to international law and everything that symbolizes what are people stand for. the strength we have shown a iran has been shown with the world. when i came into office, the world was divided. iran was at its weakest point economically, strategically, militarily has banned in many years. we will continue to keep pressure on and make sure they do not get a nuclear weapon. that is in america's national interest. >> we are four years closer to a nuclear iran. we should not have wasted these four years. they continue to spin the centrifuges and get that much
1:10 pm
closer. the reason i call it an apology tour is that you went to the middle east and you flew to saudi arabia, turkey, israel, iraq, and you skipped israel, our closest friend in the region. they noticed that you skip israel. you said that america had been dismissive and derisive. you said that on occasion america had dictated to other nations. america has not dictated to other nations. we have freed other nations from dictators. >> if we are going to talk about trips that we take, when i was a candidate for office, the first trip i took was to visit our troops. what i went to israel as a candidate, i did not take donors, i did not attend fund- raisers.
1:11 pm
i went to the holocaust museum to remind myself the nature of evil and why our bond with israel will be unpredictable. then i went to a town that experience missiles raining down from hamas. i talk to families that showed me where missiles came down near their children's bedrooms. as president, i condoned a program to stop those missiles. when i travelled to israel and a travel to the region. the central question at this point will be, who is going to be credible to all parties involved? they can look at my track record whether it is dealing with counter-terrorism for supporting democracy or women's rights and they can say that the
1:12 pm
president of the united states and united states of america has stood on the right side of history. that kind of credibility is precisely why we have been able to show leadership on a wide range of issues facing the world right now. >> what if the prime minister of israel called you on the phone and set our bombers are on the way. we are going to bomb iran? >> our relationship with israel and the prime minister of israel is such that we will not get a call saying that our bombers are on the way or the fighters are on the way. this is the kind of thing that would have been discussed or thoroughly evaluated.
1:13 pm
thes go back to what president was speaking about, which is what is happening in the world. the president is saying that things are going so well. i look at what is happening around the world and i see iran four years closer to a bomb, i see a rising tide of chaos and tumble. i see jihadist. whether they are rising or at the same level, it is hard to measure. it is clear that they are very strong. i see syria with 33,000 civilians dead. ic assad still strong. the chinese trade deficit is growing larger every year. russia says that they will not follow luger anymore. they backed away from a nuclear proliferation treaty that they had. i do not see our influence growing around the world. i see it receding. in part because of the failure of the president to deal with
1:14 pm
our economic challenges and our withdrawal from our commitment to the military in part because of the turmoil with israel. the president received a letter from 38 democrat senators, saying that tensions with israel were a real problem. they asked him to repair the tension. >> governor, the problem is that on a whole range of issues, whether it is the middle east, afghanistan, iraq, iran, you have been all over the map. i am pleased that you know are endorsing our policy applying diplomatic pressure. and potentially having bilateral discussions with the iranians to end their nuclear program. but a few years ago, you said that is something you would never do.
1:15 pm
in the same way you initially opposed a timetable in afghanistan. now you are for it, although it depends. in the same way that you say you would have ended the war in iraq but recently gave a speech saying that we should have 20,000 more folks there. the same way that you said it was missing creep to go after gadhafi. when it comes to going after osama bin laden, d said any president would make that call but when you were a candidate in 2008 and i said if i got osama bin laden in our sights, i would take that shot. you should be should not move heaven and earth to get one man. you said we should ask pakistan for permission. and it was worth moving heaven and earth to get it. after we killed osama bin laden, i was at ground zero for a memorial and talked to a young woman who was four when 9/11 happened in the last
1:16 pm
conversation she had with her father was him calling from the twin towers saying i love you and i will always watch over you. the next decade, she was haunted by the conversation. finally getting osama bin laden bought some closure to me, she said. when we bring justice to those who have harmed us, that sends a message to the world and it tells peyton that we did not forget her father. i make that point because that is the kind of clarity of leadership and those decisions are not always popular. they are generally not pull tested. even some in my own party, including my current vice- president, had the same critique as you did. but what the american people understand is that i look at what we need to get done to
1:17 pm
keep the american people safe and to move our interests for. i make those decisions. >> that takes us to the next segment. governor, america's long as war, afghanistan and pakistan. >> you cannot have the presently out a whole series and i give a chance to respond to request with respect, you lay out quite a problem there -- you laid out quite a program there. >> united states is set to turn over responsibility to the afghan government in 2014. we will withdraw our combat troops at that point, leaving smaller force of americans in afghanistan for training purposes. it seems to me the key question here is what do you do if the
1:18 pm
deadline arrives and is obvious in the afghans are unable to handle their security? do we still leave? >> we will be finished by 2014 and when i am president, we will make sure we bring our troops out by the end of 2014. the commanders and generals there are on track to do so. we have seen progress over the past several years. the search has been successful. the training program is proceeding at pace. there are a large number of afghan security forces that are ready to step in to provide security. we are going to be able to make that transition by the end of 2014. our troops will come home at that point. i cannot tell you at the same time that we will make sure we look at what is happening with
1:19 pm
pakistan and recognize that what is happening there will have a major impact on the ups excess in afghanistan. i say that because i know a lot of people feel like we should just brushed our hands and walk away. i do not mean you, mr. president. but some people in our nation feel that pakistan is not being nice to us and we should walk away from them. pakistan is important to the region, the world and to us. they have 100 nuclear warheads and they are rushing to build a lot more. it will have more of the great britain sometime in the near future. the also have the haqqani network and the taliban. a pakistan that fall apart because they failed state would be of extraordinary danger to
1:20 pm
afghanistan and to us. we are going to have to remain helpful in encouraging pakistan to move towards a more stable government and to rebuild the relationship with us. that means that our aide that we provide will have to be conditioned upon certain benchmarks be met. for me, a look at this as both a need to help move pakistan in the right direction and also to get afghanistan to be ready and they will be ready by the end of 2014. >> mr. president. >> when i came into office, we were still bogged down in iraq and afghanistan had been drifting for a decade. we ended the war in iraq. we focused our attention on afghanistan we did deliver a surge of troops. we are now in a position where we have met many of the objectives that got us there in the first place. part of what happened is we forgot why we had gone. we went because there were people who were responsible for 3000 american deaths and so we decimated al qaeda's core leadership in the border regions between afghanistan and pakistan. we then started to build up afghan forces and we are now in a position where we can transition out. there is no reason why americans should die when afghans are perfectly capable of
1:21 pm
defending their own country. that transition has to take place in an irresponsible fashion. we have been there a long time and we have to make -- in a responsible fashion. we have been there a long time and we have to make sure we and our partners are pulling out responsibility -- responsibly. after a decade of war, it is time to do some nation-building here at home. what we can now do is we have some resources to put americans back to work, especially our veterans, rebuilding our roads, bridges, schools. making sure our veterans are getting the care they need when
1:22 pm
it comes to posttraumatic stress disorder. and dramatic brain injury. making sure that the certification they need for good jobs in the future are in place. i spoke to someone who was a medic dealing with extreme circumstances. when he came home, he could not get a job. as a consequence, veterans unemployment is now lower than general population and was higher when i came into office. those are the things that we can now do because we are making that transition in afghanistan. >> let me go to governor romney. you talked about pakistan and what needs to be down there. general allan, commander in afghanistan, said americans continue to die at the hands of groups who are supported by pakistan. we know that pakistan has arrested the doctor to help us catch osama bin laden. it still provides safe haven for terrorists yet we continue to get pakistan billions of dollars. is it time for us to divorce pakistan? >> no, it is not time to divorce a nation on earth that has 100 nuclear-weapons and is on the way to double that. a nation that has serious
1:23 pm
threats from terrorist groups within its nation. it is a nation not like others and does not have a civilian leadership calling the shots there. you have the isi, their intelligence organization. and you have the military and civilian government. this is a nation, which if it falls apart and becomes a failed state, there are nuclear weapons there. you have terrorists there who can grab their hands on those nuclear weapons. this is an important part of the world for us. pakistan is technically an ally. they are not acting very much like an alley by now but we have work to do. i cannot blame the administration for the fact that the relationship with pakistan is strained. we had to go into pakistan to get osama bin laden. that was the right thing to do. that upset them that there was a great deal of anger even
1:24 pm
before that. we will have to work with the people in pakistan to try to help them move to a more responsible course than the one they are on. it is important for them, the nuclear weapons, the success of afghanistan. inside pakistan, you have a large group of pashtuns that are taliban's. it is important for us to recognize that we cannot just walk away from pakistan theory we do need to make sure as we send support for them that this is tied to them making progress on matters that would lead them to becoming a civil society. >> we know president obama's position, but what is your position on the use of drones? >> i believe we should use all means necessary to take out those who opposed a threat to us -- those who pose a threat to us. i support entirely and bill the president was right to opt the uses of that technology -- and believe the president was right to up the use of that
1:25 pm
technology. as i said earlier, we will have to do more than just going after leaders in killing bad guys. important as that is, we will also have to have a far more effective and comprehensive strategy to help move the world away from terror and islamic extremism. we have not done that yet. we talked a lot about these things but look at the record. is iran closer to a bomb? yes. is the middle east in tumult? yes. is al qaeda on the line? yesterday have not seen the progress we need to have to rebut strong leadership and an effort to build a strategy, we can see the kind piece of the world demand.
1:26 pm
>> our strategy was not just going after osama bin laden. we created partnerships around the region to do with extremism in somalia, yemen, pakistan. what we have also done is a gauge the government's in the -- engage the government in the kind of reforms that will make a difference and the people's lives day-to-day. to make sure that they are treating women with the kind of respect and dignity that every
1:27 pm
nation has shown and to make sure they have a free market system that works. across the board, we are engaging them in building capacity in these countries and we have stood on the side of democracy. one thing americans should be proud of when two nations began to protest this nation, me, my administration stood with them earlier than just about any other country. in egypt, we stood on the side of democracy. in libya, we stood on the side of the people. as a consequence, there is no doubt that attitudes about americans have changed. but there will always be elements in these countries that potentially threatened the united states. we want to shrink those groups and as networks and we can do that but we will also have to make vigilance when it comes to terrorist activity.
1:28 pm
al qaeda is much weaker than it was when i came into office and they do not have the same capacity to attack the u.s. homeland and our allies as they did four years ago. >> let's go to the next segment. it is a very important one. the rise of china and future challenges for america. i want to begin by asking both of you, mr. president, you go first this time. what do you believe is the
1:29 pm
greatest feature threat to the national security of this country? >> i think it will continue to be terrorist networks. we have to remain vigilant, as i just said. with respect to china, china is both an adversary but also a potential partner in the international community if it's following the rules. my attitude coming into office was that we are going to insist that china plays by the same rules as everybody else. i know americans have seen it. jobs being shipped overseas, businesses and workers not getting a level playing field when it came to trade. that is the reason why i set up a trade pass -- task force to go after cheaters when it came to international trade. that is why we have brought
1:30 pm
more cases against china for violating trade rules than the other -- the previous administration had done in two terms and we won just about every case the file that has been decided. recently, steel workers in ohio and throughout the midwest are in a position now to sell steel to china because we won that case. we had a tire case where they were flooding us with cheap chinese tires. we put a stop to it. as a consequence, saved jobs throughout america. i have to say that governor romney criticized me for being too tough in that case, said this would not be good for american workers. i tell you those workers do not feel that way. they feel as if they had -- finally the administration was going to take this issue seriously. over the long term for us to compete with china, we also have to make sure we are taking care business at home. if we do not have the best education system in the vault, if we do not continue to put money into research -- system in the world, if we cannot continue to put money into research, that is how we lose the competition. unfortunately, governor romney's budget and his proposals would not allow us to make those investments. >> governor pierre >> it is not a government that makes business successful. -- >> governor. >> it is not a government that makes business successful.
1:31 pm
the greatest national threat is a nuclear iran. let's talk about china. china has an interest very much like ours. that is they want to -- they want a stable world. they do not want to see the world break out into various forms of chaos because they have to manufacture goods and put people to work. they have 20 million people coming out of forms every year. coming into the cities, needing jobs. they want the economy to work and the world to be free. so we can be a partner with china. we do not have to be an adversary in any way shape or form. we can work with them and collaborate with them, if they are willing to be responsible. they look at us and say is it a good idea to be with america? how strong are we going to be? how strong is our economy. a look at the fact that we owe them $1 trillion. they look at our decision to cut back on our military capabilities. $1 trillion. the secretary of defense call these cuts to the military devastating. it is the president's own
1:32 pm
secretary of defense who call them devastating to read a look at america's commitments around the world and they see what is happening and say is america going to be strong? the answer is yes. if i am president, america will be very strong. we will also make sure we have trade relations with china that work for us. i watched a year in and year out as companies have shut down and people have lost their jobs because china has not played by the same rules. in part by holding down the value of their currency that holds down the prices of their goods and means our goods are not as competitive and we lose
1:33 pm
jobs. that has to end. they are making some progress. they need to make more. on day one, i will legal limit currency manipulator which allows us to apply where they are taking does. distilling our patents -- they are stealing our patent, counterfeiting our good spirit we want to trade with them, we want a world that is stable. we live free enterprise but you have to play by the rules. >> governor, if you declare that a currency manipulator on day one, some people say you will just start a trade war with china. isn't there a risk? >> they sellas about this much stuff every year. and we seldom about this much stuff every year. it is pretty clear who does not want to trade. -- they sell us about this much stuff every year. we sell them about this much debt every year. it is pretty clear who does not want to trade. we cannot lose dodd year in and year out. we have to say to our friends in china, you're playing aggressively but this can i keep on going. you cannot hold down the value of their currency, steal our intellectual property,
1:34 pm
counterfeit our products, seldom around the world. even in the united states. there is one company that makes the valves and they said we are having some coming in the broken and we had to repair them under warranty. we looked them up and they had our serial number on them. devin noticed that there was more than one with that same serial number. they were counterfeit products being made overseas with the same serial number as the u.s. company. they're being sold around the world at the they were being made by the u.s. competitor. this cannot go on. i want a great relationship with china. china can be our partner. that does not mean they can run all over us and steer -- steal our jobs. >> governor brown is right. you are familiar with jobs being invested overseas because
1:35 pm
you were -- governor romney is right. you are familiar with does being shipped overseas because you invest in companies that ship jobs overseas. we would be buying cars from china instead of selling cars to china. if we take your advice with respect to how we change our tax codes so companies that are earning profits overseas do not pay u.s. taxes, compared to companies here that are paying taxes, that is estimated to create $800,000. but the problem is they will be in place like china. if we're not making investments in education and basic research which is not something the private sector is doing and is sufficient basis, then we will lose the lead in things like clean energy technology. with respect to what we have done with time already, u.s. exports -- we have done with
1:36 pm
china already, u.s. exports have doubled to china. currencies are at the most advantageous point for u.s. exporters since 1993. we have to make more progress and that is why we will keep on pressing. when it comes to our military and chinese security, part of the reason we are able to pivot to the asia-pacific region after having ended the war in iraq and transitioning out of afghanistan is because this is going to be a massive growth area in the future. we believe china can be a partner but we are also sending a very clear signal that america is a pacific power. we will have a presence there. we are working with countries in the region to make sure for example that ships can pass through. the commerce continues. in reorganizing trade relations with countries -- and we are organizing relations with countries. that is the kind of leadership we have shown and will continue to show. >> i want to take one of those points. attacking me as not talking about an agenda for getting more trade and opening up more jobs in this country.
1:37 pm
the president mentioned the auto industry and that i would somehow be added a favor of jobs being elsewhere. nothing could be further from the truth. i will msn of detroit. my father was head of a car company. -- i am a son of detroit. my father was the head of a car company. president bush wrote the first checks. i disagree with that. i said they need these companies to manage bankruptcy's predicting the government has --bankruptcies. they can get government help. >> governor romney, that is not what he said. you did not say you would provide -- >> that allow these companies to come out of bankruptcy. under no circumstances would i do anything other than to help this industry get on its feet. the idea that i would quit the
1:38 pm
industry, of course not. >> let's check the records. >> i never said i will liquidate the industry. >> governor, the people of detroit to not forget your >> that's why i had a commitment to make sure our industries can compete and be successful. we can compete successfully with anyone in the world and we are going to. we will have to have a president, however, that does not think somehow government investing in car companies like tesla -- this is not research. the government is investing in companies. solyndra. this is not basic research. i want to invest in research. research is great. providing funding to
1:39 pm
universities and think tanks, great, but investing in companies, absolutely not. i am still speaking. i want to assure we make america more competitive and that we do those things to make america the most attractive place in the world for entrepreneurs, innovators, businesses to grow. but investing in companies makes it less likely for government -- countries to come here. >> i think anybody out there can check the records. governor, you keep trying to airbrush history. you were very clear that you would not provide government assistance to the u.s. auto companies, even if they went through bankruptcy. he said they could get it in the private marketplace. that was not true. >> you are wrong.
1:40 pm
>> no, i am not wrong. it is true that in order for us to be competitive, we will have to make some smart tresses. cutting our education budget, that is not a smart choice. that will not help us compete with china. cutting our investment in research and technology, that is not a smart choice. bringing down our deficit by adding $7 trillion of tax cuts and military spending that our military is not asking for before we even get to the debt we currently have, that is not going to make us more competitive. those are the kinds of choices the american people face right now.
1:41 pm
having a tax code that will reward companies shipping jobs overseas instead of companies investing here in the united states. that will not make us more competitive. the one thing i am clear about is after a decade in which we saw ate it, jobs being shipped overseas, nobody championing american workers and businesses, we have now begun to make real progress. the chemical back to the same policies -- we cannot go back to the same policies that got us into such difficulty and in the first place. >> i could not agree more about going forward but i do not want to go back to the policies of the last four years. the policies have seen incomes in america declined every year for middle income families. now about $4,300 during your term. 23 million americans still struggling to find a good job when he came to office, 32 million people on food stamps. today, 47 million people. when you came to office, over $10 trillion in debt. now $16 trillion. it has not worked. you said by now we would be at
1:42 pm
5.4% unemployment. we are 9 million jobs short of that i have met some of those people. i met them in wisconsin. i met a young woman in philadelphia coming out of college, cannot find work. ann was with someone the other day week -- beeping about not being able to get work. it is a tragedy it into a nation as prosperous as ours. -- in a nation as prosperous as ours. it is critical to build jobs, growth the economy. not one of how ben by hiring teachers. i left teachers-- that is not going to happen by hiring teachers. i love that teachers. -- teachers. i was a governor. the federal government did not hire our teachers. i want to get our private sector covering -- growing. >> i think we all left teachers. the gentleman, thank you so much for a vigorous the date. we have come to the end. it is time for closing statements. >> thank you very much. bob, governor romney. you have now heard three debate three months of campaigning in a way to many tv commercials. now you have a choice.
1:43 pm
over the last four years, we have made real progress digging our way out the policies that give us two prolong wars, record deficits and the worst economic crisis since the great depression. governor romney wants to take us back to those policies. foreign policy that is reckless, economic policies that will not create jobs, will not reduce our deficit will make sure that folks at the top and not have to play by the same rules that you do. i have a different vision for america. i want to build on our strengths. i have put forward a plan to make sure that we will bring manufacturing jobs back to our shores. by rewarding companies and small businesses investing here, not overseas. i want to make sure we have the
1:44 pm
best education system in the world. retaining our workers -- re training our workers to the jobs of tomorrow. i want to develop oil and natural gas and energy sources of the future. i want to reduce our deficit by cutting spending we do not need but also by asking to do more so we can invest in things like research and technology that are the key to a 21st century economy. as commander in chief, i will maintain the strongest military in the world. and go after those who would do us harm. after a decade of war, i think we all recognize the have to do some nation-building. the building our roads, bridges, and especially caring for our veterans who sacrificed so much for our freedom. we have been through tough times. but we always bounce back because of our character. because be put -- pull together. if i had the privilege of being a president for another four years, i promise you i will fight for your families. i will work every single day to make sure that america continues to be the greatest nation on earth.
1:45 pm
thank you. >> bob, mr. president. good to be with you. i am optimistic about the future. i am excited about our prospects as a nation. i want to see peace. i want to see growing peace in this country. it is our objective. we have an opportunity to have real leadership. america will have that kind of leadership and will promote principles of peace that will make the world a safer place. and the people in this country more confident that their future is secure. i also want to make sure we get this economy going. there are two different paths the country can take 31 is represented by the president which bought at the end of four years would mean we would have $20 trillion in debt. i will get us on track to a balanced budget. the president's path will mean continuing declining in take- home pay.
1:46 pm
i want to make sure it starts to grow. the president's past means 20 million people out of work traveling for a good job theory -- job. i want to get people off of food stamps not by cutting the program but by getting them good jobs. america will come back. for that to happen, we will have to have a program -- president that can work across the aisle. i was in a state where my legislator was 87% democrat. i learned how to get along on the other side of the aisle. we have to do that in washington. washington is broken. i know what it takes to get this country back. we will work with democrats and republicans to do that. this nation is the hope of the earth. we have been blessed by having a nation that is free and prosperous, thanks to the contributions of the greatest generation that held a torch for the world to see. a torch of freedom and hope and opportunity. now it is our turn to take that porch. i am convinced we will do it.
1:47 pm
we need strong leadership. i would like to be that leader with your support. i will work with you and the view in an open and honest way. i ask for your vote. i would like to be the next president of the united states to help and support this next week in this great nation and to make sure we maintain america as the hope of the earth's protective so much. >> gentlemen, thank you so much. that brings an end to this year's debates in the want to thank lynn university and its students. i leave you with the words of my mom said, go vote. good night. >> thank you. >> thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [applause]
1:48 pm
1:49 pm
1:50 pm
1:51 pm
[applause] >> we ask viewers what they thought of the final presidential debate. here's what some of you had to say.
1:52 pm
>> i was undecided until this debate. what i saw was obama was presidential. what i heard was leadership. i appreciated the fact that he was straightforward, was candid about his own positions, and what i heard from romney was a parrot. >> i think governor romney won hands down all these debates. >> i am proud of president barack obama. he is presidential, a statesman, and when romney is asked a question, he looks like a man that cannot take pressure. >> mr. romney seemed to me to be a little wishy-washy. earlier in the debate, he made a statement about having a backbone. later he states that he wants to work with china, he wants to deal with pakistan. >> i want to say something about the moderators in these debates. i think they are one-sided, i think. i believe in governor romney and i hope people open their eyes and take notice of what is
1:53 pm
going on in our country. >> romney answers the questions. everybody keeps saying he kept tiptoeing around them, and he is not. he is straightforward. he is consistent, as to where obama has not been consistent. >> i thought the debate lagged off the questions. it got away from the foreign policy, and they started talking about the domestic economy, and i was trying to tie that in into what the questions were, and i do not think either candidate -- they kept going back to the economy. >> i felt governor romney has done an excellent job today, very presidential, and the main point at the end of the comments, our family has felt we are not being protected as a nation, that our borders are open, and the issues discussed tonight on foreign policy i felt that romney is going to get
1:54 pm
my vote for sure. >> i thought romney was comfortable talking about the economy. i thought president obama was clear talking about foreign policy, and he did a better job of tying in foreign policy with our current economy. >> i was disappointed with the president. i was looking for him to lay out his strategy in foreign policy, and i found him to be the jimmy carter of our generation. >> i am kind of thinking that obama won this, because i do not know, romney sounded more like obama and less like himself, backing down a little bit. >> president obama and romney both failed to say anything about small businesses. >> obama did very well today. out of all three presidential
1:55 pm
debates, this is by far his strongest showing. he was presidential, he was direct, to the point, straightforward. he called out romney on some of his equivocations with such prowess and being so polite that it was admirable to watch our president defend his policies of the last four years. >> as we follow our candidate, watch and engage with c-span. >> with less than 10 days until election day, president obama will campaign with former president bill clinton tomorrow in youngstown, ohio. later the former u.s. ambassador to kuwait and somalia discussed
1:56 pm
conflict in libya and egypt, live at 7:30 p.m.. as we approach election day, c- span is asking middle school students and high school students what the most important issue is that the president should consider in 2013. $50,000 in total prizes. the deadline is january 18, 2013. find out more, >> ed rendell and rick santorum talk about the last days of the election cycle. they talked about what president obama and mitt romney need to do to win in november. this is just over one hour.
1:57 pm
>> we can see what we can do to push those concepts forward. our final panel of the afternoon focuses on the events that are dominating conversation across the nation and the world, actually. i have spoken to many people overseas recently and everyone is focused on the upcoming election. obviously, from our perspective here at the institute for legal reform, whoever wins a presidential election will have a major impact on legal, regulatory, and enforcement issues going forward. just as crucial as a presidential election for many of us are the presidential contests that will -- are the house and senate elections. we have invited two great
1:58 pm
figures from the commonwealth of pennsylvania. former governor ed rendell, a democrat, former senator rick santorum, republican. neither of these men are known for being at a loss for words, i think we will have a very lively discussion. moderating the panel is scott rasmussen. he is a frequent guest on cable tv and a contributor to numerous prints and online publications. he recently debuted a nationally syndicated television show, "what america thinks." with that, i will turn it over. >> this is a great time. less than two weeks to go until the election, we are already in the election month. voters in lots of other states are casting ballots as well and it has changed everything about the election process.
1:59 pm
we are at the point where everyone is guessing who's going to win. from what i see in the numbers everyone who tells you that they know is lying to you or deluding themselves. the race is close and it has been close. i want to take it will but of context. in the last few weeks the media stories have been about how mitt romney had a great first debate and turn the entire campaign around and is now in some quarters considered a slight favorite in this race. the reality is that in the morning of the first debate, barack obama was up 49% to 47% in our daily tracking poll. after that debate it was mitt romney who was up. what that means is that 98% of voters did not change their mind. 2% went from grudgingly supporting barack obama

Washington This Week
CSPAN October 28, 2012 10:30am-2:00pm EDT


TOPIC FREQUENCY Us 74, America 51, Romney 41, Israel 31, China 27, Syria 25, Afghanistan 24, Pakistan 22, United States 18, Iraq 17, Iran 17, U.s. 15, Obama 13, Libya 12, Osama Bin 8, Russia 8, Virgil Goode 7, Gary Johnson 6, Washington 6, Jill Stein 6
Network CSPAN
Duration 03:30:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 91 (627 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 704
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color

disc Borrow a DVD of this show
info Stream Only
Uploaded by
TV Archive
on 10/28/2012